The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-04-29

In the case of Lewis Audenred et al vs.. The Phia-
delphia and Reading Railroad Company, IN equity,
Judge Read this morning delivered the following
opniOn:-
the defendants were Incorporated their railroad
might terminate "at some suitable point in or near
the city OF Philadelphia, or on the line OF the Pha-
delpha and Columbia, or the Philadelphia, German
town and NorristOwn Railroad and under these
powers they constructed railroad terminating on
the River Delaware, at Richmond, near the city OF
Philadelphia. This route is distinctly recognized In
the fourth section Of the act OF goth March, 1888
(P L. 149), In these words, "The route already To-
Gated by them for their railroad from the Falls of
Schuykill to the River Delaware" The eastern ter
mnation of the main coal line OF the road s there
fore, the river. TO accommodate the shippers OF
coal large wharf front, to be owned by the COM
pany, was therefore matter of absolute necessity,
and It has been acquired by the defendants, who
have built whaTves and piers running into the tide
way OF the Delaware, with branches or extensions
of the railroad running down to the ends OF the
piers, as to allow the coal to be emptied from the
cars into the holds Of the vessels
Bins are also provided into which the coal can be
dumped when the vessels are not there. The
branches or extensions are in fact part Of the main
line, and subject tO the same rules and provisions,
or they are branch railroads, within the meaning OF
the 18th section the act Of 18th April, 1876, which
has been extended by the act OF the 18TH April,
1854, p L. 800, TO the Philadelphia and Reading Rail
rad Company. BLACK vs. Railroad Company rs,
Legal Inteiltg ence, 1868, p. BOLD
The main line is sS4 miles in length, with double
track, and all the railroads owned leased, or
i0lled by the defendants have an aggregate length
Including sioings, amounting to 1l42 miles OF single
tary TO the main line almost the entire territory
OF the southern and middle coal fields, Of sixty
miles, and the other of over thirty miles in length.
The capital stock Of the Philadelphia and Reading
Railroad Company, on 30th November 1869, was
1OO2s, its funded deot SIsl959213 and the
managers have negotiated loan OF So, 100000 OF
seven per cent. coupon bonds, dated January 1,
1870, payable IN twenty years, one-half convertible
at the option OF the holder into stock at par at any
time after the first of January, 1872. The result
of this large moneyed investment was that in 1869
the total OF all coal transported ON the main line
a. 451 of 224O lbs OF which 362 912
were sent to Richmond for shipment.
Lewis Audenried, one OF the plaintiffs, was the
first shipper OF coal that occupied one OF these
wharves at Richmond. He took 1t in the year ls42,
and used it till lS4s, when he formed partnership,
which continued the occupancy till 1854, when the
present firm Uhe plaintiffs In the billy was formed,
who used wharf or part OF a wharf till 1865 and
for two years past used the wharf No. II as shippers
OF coal from that point to New York, Boston, and
During all this time, with the exception of 1858,
the plaintiffs aege that they their predecessors,
for twenty. years, with that single exception
have been, If not the largest, certainly among the
largest shippers of coal over the road, and from
these wharves during the past year QS69) they
shipped there over $4,000 TONS being an eleventh
part within fraction, Of all the coal sent there for
Lewis Audenried, the senior partner, in his aGl-
dsvit says:-"Relylng on the continuance OF the
usual facilities al Richmond my hrm,an the several
partners are involved in large engagements to carry
out which, TO great extent, equal facilities at Rich
mond for shipping with all others In the trade are
awe have advanced to miners not less than
S17500o and agreed to advance not less than 900
more.
facilities our custom will be to great extent broken
up, or we must find coal for 1t elsewhere, and prn
Cipay from parties who transport 1t over roads ter
mlnat'ng directly in the vicinity OF New York.
"When the company made the arrangement with
us looking to an Increased tonnage and business,
they gave us additional wharf accommodations for
the expected increase, ana IN consequence OF TINS
it is believed the company made in the year 1869
about $4,000 on the item Of shipping our coal
much larger pront than was made from any other
individual shipper or firm.
"The dispute between us and the company arises
from different interpretations Of the terms of a
bal contract. never knew or believed nor heard it
asserted that the terms were such as the company
now asserts until the shipping season was over and
the drawbacks paid"
Since 1861 the company ships all the coal and are
paid from fifteen TO twenty-five and half cents per
ton, with ten cents for dumpage, during the day OF
arrival and loss OF this allowance, II not so dis
charged, and an additional fine.
The defendants claim there is due to them, by the
paintifs the sum of ss7 993 49, being as they aege
received by them as drawbacks during the years 1868
and 1869, ia excess OF the drawbacks current at
the time and in letter dated LIST OF February, 1870
making this claim, 1t is distinctly stated that If the
claim is not properly adjusted "ths company will
feel constrained to commence legal proceedings for
its recovery, and will refuse to permit Messrs
Audenried q Co. to occupy wharf at Richmond
hereafter"
The last threat has been carried into full effect
and the plaintiffs entirely deprived OF all wharf
accommodation at Richmond 1t will be observed
that the defendants as carriers OF COAL take charge
of it from the coal region until it is loaded into the
vessels at Richmond. The railroad Is thus extended
from its commencement in Schuylkill county until
1t reaches the vessels III the Delaware into which
the coal Is to be 10 lded or the contracts for 1865
we have no other evidence than that the drawbacks
were given by the President and Mr.. Tucker, and
paid and settled without word OF complaint on
either side. In the beginning of 1869, it was deemed
important, as had been found in 1865, to induce
large shipments OF coal TO the eastward and par
ticularly TO Boston, which could only be done by
giving heavy ~ so as 10 o the SsS snip R
compete with the coal OF other companies whose
natural terminus was New York and not Philadel-
phia. An effort was made by Mr.. Smith In Marcn,
1862 to have the trade called together and to induce
them to sell coal freely and to unite with the COM
pany at low charges for transportation in exhibiting
the strength Of the Schuylkil region. Colonel Day.
the gentlemen spoken to, said to Mr. Smith, "That
1t was our fight with the New York companies and
that we ought urge the operators to parUici-
pate in it," at which he said Mr.. Smith exhibited
good deal OF annoyance.
1862 to Mr. Smith, which was read to the President
before it was sent, ~ inquired If he Colonel Day
recollected how low you r. Smith offered to trans
mort the coal He replied that he thought you said
as low fifty cents, II 1t was necessary to mautain
a successful competition; then asked the COM
mittee how they supposed we felt when Audenred
* Co proposed to secure to us the transportation of
10000 tons at the price agreed upon. stated that
we felt under great obligations to them"
Mr. John Tucker, very able and acute man OF
business in the conclusion OF his letter says, Even
now with All the money we have made, / would be
better satisfied IL all had had steady and regu-
lar business and working to our capacity at the
charges on Audenrieds coal than am now; The
won it. Now a conf ct Is probably before us.
1t is clear that whatever contract was made be-
tween Mr. Tucker, the recognized agent OF the
Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company. and
Mr.. Addison Child, ON behalf OF the plaintiffs, at
which w. G. Audenied was present, sit was all YER
ba except the memorandum mentioned In the BILL
or this contract there are three competent wit
nesses, Mr. Tucker, Mr.. Child and Mr.. Audenried,
and by IT, whatever it was both parties In good faith
snould be bound The error, II there be any, has
been In turning to resolutions OF the board and as
Stunning that all contracts made by authorized agents
were illegal Il not in strict conformity with them.