Opinion ID: 1752254
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equity of the bill.

Text: If the Commission be entitled to enjoin the violation of the certificate, the bill must show that the act sought to be enjoined is, in fact, such a violation. The bill clearly alleges that the plant of Courtaulds, Inc. is east of Highway 5. The certificate does not prohibit service to a point east of the highway unless such point is located on the highway. Looking to the facts averred in the instant bill, and construing the averments against the pleader as we must on demurrer, we are of opinion that the facts averred do not, as a matter of law, clearly and unequivocally show that the point to which respondent makes the deliveries sought to be enjoined is located on the highway within the meaning of the word, on, as used in respondent's certificate. The bill avers that the only access to the plant, except by rail, is a county road, which runs from Highway 5, across the railroad right of way to the physical plant of the company. The distance from the highway to the plant is not shown. That distance might be 100 yards or 10 miles, for aught that appears in the bill. We do not think a plant located ten miles, or even one mile, from a highway and on a county road, is, as a matter of law, located on that highway according to the ordinary meaning of the language used. It seems more likely that such a plant would ordinarily be described as being one mile, or ten miles, off the highway. The Commission's argument seems to be summarized in brief as follows: The Commission does not contend that Cooper may not travel Alabama Highway No. 5 in order to serve points east of said highway; but the Commission says that if Highway No. 5 is the only place of entrance to a point east of said highway that Cooper does not have the authority to serve said point. The reason for the Commission's position on this question is that Public Convenience and Necessity does not require, nor does it even permit, a motor carrier to travel a circuitous route to serve a particular point when said point is on the direct route of other motor carriers. In this case we have several other motor carriers who have the authority to serve points on Alabama Highway No. 5, but not points east of said highway; and said motor carriers are now actually serving the plant of Courtaulds with the approval of the Commission. Whatever may be the reason for the appellee's contention, we are not able to agree that a restriction which forbids service to a point located on a highway also forbids service to a point which is not located on the highway, simply because the point cannot be reached except by a county road leading from the highway. To so hold would be to amend the certificate. On demurrer, a bill must be construed most strongly against the pleader, and if a pleading is susceptible of two constructions, one which will render it good and the other bad, the latter must be indulged because it is the one against the pleader. Puckett v. Puckett, supra. We think the instant bill is subject to two constructions. If it does not affirmatively show that the point in question is not located on Highway 5, certainly it is susceptible of such a construction. So construed, the bill is without equity, and the grounds of demurrer taking that point are due to be sustained. Appellee has attached to its brief four exhibits purporting to show the relative location of the plant and the highway. These exhibits are not in the record and cannot be considered. Williams v. Schaeffer, 262 Ala. 636, 80 So.2d 722. The decree overruling the demurrer is reversed, a decree is here rendered sustaining the demurrer, and the cause is remanded. Reversed, rendered, and remanded. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.