Court Opinion

ID: 9584657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:51:14.751776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:14.981007
License: Public Domain

Grice, Justice,
dissenting. As I view it, the fact that the commission’s order is in the alternative does not give it validity, but emphasizes its violation of Rule 22. The effect of either alternative requires use of Southern’s property by A. C. L. without its consent. To require Southern either to permit A. C. L. to use its tracks or, upon failure, to suffer a penalty by rate adjustment, as the facts here show, is indeed a Hobson’s Choice —in reality no choice at all.
As the owner of the tracks involved here, Southern should *169be allowed to exercise its property rights without any such penalty. I certainly do not consider that to be unlawful discrimination.
The dissent of Chief Justice Duckworth, with which I agree, was prepared prior to the addition made to the opinion upon consideration of motion for rehearing. My dissent is written afterwards, and I am authorized to state that he concurs in it.