Court Opinion

ID: 9584655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:51:14.743567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:14.960696
License: Public Domain

*163On Motion for Rehearing.
Southern Railway Company in its motion for rehearing asserts that, “there was an allegation of discrimination, there was no evidence of discrimination.”
With reference to the use of Southern’s “Turtle River” spur track by A. C. L., it was provided in part in the 1902 joint operating agreement (in the second paragraph of Subparagraph (b) of Paragraph 1, Record, p. 126) that, “the parties hereto shall jointly use the said tracks and terminal facilities for the transportation and movement of any and all business connected with the operation of the parties hereto . . . ” In the 1958 *164operating agreement between Southern and A. C. L., with reference to the use by A. C. L. of Southern’s “Turtle River” spur track, (the second paragraph of Paragraph 1, Record, p. 185), it is provided in part, “it being agreed that Coast Line will handle such cars to and from said plants of Brunswick Pulp & Paper Company and Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation through said connection track and no other.”
It is not disputed that Solvay located its plant on Southern’s “Turtle River” spur track in 1955' while the 1902 operating agreement was in full force and effect. In Paragraph 5 of Solvay’s complaint (Record, p. 119) it is alleged in part: “5. After having so terminated the agreement of 1902, the said carriers, Southern and ACL, entered into a new agreement whereby ACL was permitted to operate on Southern’s Turtle River spur for the purpose of serving all other shippers located thereon with the single exception of Solvay.” This allegation of Solvay’s complaint was admitted by both Southern and A. C. L.
As set forth in our statement of facts, Solvay alleged in Paragraph 6 of its complaint (Record, p. 120) that, “By the discontinuance of the service previously afforded by said railroads the operation from Solvay’s plant to the Hercules Powder Company plant located on ACL tracks at Brunswick is changed from an intraterminal switch at the rate of $19.18 to an inter-terminal switch, the charge for which is $26.38 (an increase of $7.20).” In its answer to Paragraph 6 of Solvay’s complaint, Southern in its Paragraph 6 (Record, p. 151) alleged: “Answering the allegations of Paragraph 6, this defendant admits that cancellation of the 1902 agreement had the effect of limiting the complainant to the terminal facilities of a single railroad, and that the former intraterminal switch from complainant’s plant to plant of Hercules Powder Company was- superseded by an interterminal switch.” A. C. L. in its answer to Paragraph 6 admitted the allegations of the paragraph, except that it denied that the injury to Solvay was caused by any fault on its part (Record, p. 155).
Chauncey H. Gibson, a witness for the complainant Solvay, testified (Record, p. 48) that under the tariffs on the A. C. L. from Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation to the Hercules *165Powder Company the charge was $19.18, and that the charge from Solvay’s plant for like services by Southern was $26.40. It appears from the language of the 1958 operating agreement that there is “built-in” discrimination in the contract itself, wherein A. C. L. is permitted to serve all shippers on the “Turtle River” spur track other than Solvay. The answer of the defendants admitted that the charge to Solvay was changed from an intraterminal switch to an interterminal switch charge, and the testimony of the witness Gibson shows that the difference in the two charges, between intraterminal and interterminal switching, is $7.20 per car. From the language of the 1958 agreement, the admissions of the railroads, and the testimony of the witness Gibson, the commission was amply authorized to find that discrimination existed in favor of Solvay’s competitor, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation.
The issue before the Public Service Commission was whether or not the 1958 contract between Southern and A. C. L., and operations thereunder by them, resulted in discrimination in freight rates against Solvay Chemical • Corporation. The commission determined that discrimination existed and that it should be eliminated.
Southern Railway Company insists in its motion for a rehearing that we have overlooked, and not given effect to, Rule 22 of the commission, as follows: “No regulation of the Commission shall be construed as requiring or authorizing the use of any property of one railroad company by another railroad company, for any purpose whatever, without the consent of the owner of such property.”
The order of the commission does not require any additional use of Southern’s “Turtle River” spur track by A. C. L., since the order is in the alternative. It is stated that the discrimination could be removed by the railroads rendering the same service to Solvay as is presently being furnished Brunswick Pulp & Paper Company and Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation. This would involve some additional use by A. C. L. of Southern’s “Turtle River” track. It is further provided, however, that the discrimination can be eliminated by an adjustment in the freight charges so that Solvay will be charged no more *166by Southern than is charged by A. C. L. for the same service rendered to Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation. In addition to that part of the order quoted in our statement of facts, the commission provided in paragraph 2 as follows: “Any tariff publication necessary to effect such removal of discrimination may be made effective on one day’s notice to the Commission and to the public.” Under these facts Rule 22 is not involved and is not applicable to the order of the Commission.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Duckworth, C. J., and Grice, J., dissent.