Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois Commerce Commission (359 Ill. 563, 1935)

Mr. Justice Orr

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Illinois Central Railroad Company has appealed from a judgment of the circuit court of DuPage county entered January 19, 1934, which affirmed an order of the Illinois Commerce Commission condemning a proposed freight tariff. Two appeals involving the same issues of law and fact were perfected from this judgment, one in accordance with the procedure for appeals in effect prior to January 1, 1934, and the other in compliance with the Civil Practice act in effect on and after that date. Appellant by a motion asks that the two appeals be consolidated. This cannot be done. The appeal in case No. 22496 is dismissed, as it was not perfected in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Practice act in force on and after January 1, 1934. On the other hand, the appeal in case No. 22535 appears to have been made in conformity with-the provisions of the Civil Practice act, and we are thus given jurisdiction to decide the issues involved therein.

Appellant operates a main railroad line between Free-port and Hawthorne, in this State. Coleman and Hunger are situated between the two places and are three and nine-tenths miles apart. The Morton Sand and Gravel Company owns a gravel deposit and processing plant at Hunger. Appellant owns a gravel deposit at Coleman, portions of which it has leased to concerns like the Morton Company. The gravel deposit of the Morton Company at Hunger contained sixty-five per cent sand and thirty-five per cent gravel. Owing to the increased demand for gravel and the lessened demand for sand the Morton Company could not operate its Hunger plant to advantage. Appellant’s deposit at Coleman contained sixty-five per cent gravel and thirty-five per cent sand. The Morton Company determined that it could operate appellant’s deposit at a profit if it could be leased upon a royalty basis and the gravel hauled by appellant to the processing plant at Munger for a reasonable compensation. A lease was entered into and appellant charged a transit tariff rate of three dollars per car for hauling the gravel and sand from Coleman to Munger. Appellant thereafter filed the proposed rate with the Commerce Commission. This was a local tariff rate without transit conditions — i.