The opinion of the court was delivered by: CORCORAN
Corcoran, district Judge.
This action was commenced by the plaintiff J.M. Asbury, t/a Asbury Coal Company ("Asbury") by petition for an injunction to restrain the abandonment by the defendant Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. ("C&O") of certain railroad facilities without first having secured the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission ("Commission").
The complaint was subsequently amended to include a claim for damages. Injunctive relief having been denied, Asbury v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 264 F. Supp. 437 (D.D.C. 1967), it is only that claim for damages which is presently before the Court.
The defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
The controlling facts follow.
On January 21, 1965 the defendant C&O applied to the Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity under 49 U.S.C. §§ 1(18)-1(20) which would permit the C&O to abandon its branch line between Jenkins, Kentucky and Meade, Virginia. The line utilized a tunnel through Pine Mountain. While the application was pending before the Commission, a C&O inspection team on August 14, 1965 determined that the tunnel was no longer safe due to physical deterioration. It thereupon suspended all operations over the branch line and placed an embargo on all service to and from the branch line. The Commission ultimately granted the C&O's application for a certificate on August 7, 1967, having determined that public convenience and necessity did not warrant the large expenditure of funds ($1.5 million) necessary to repair the tunnel. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company Abandonment Between Jenkins, Kentucky and Meade, Virginia, 331 I.C.C. 889 (1967). That decision was upheld by a three judge court. Asbury v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 589 (W.D. Va. 1969).
The defendant's motion for summary judgment assumes, for the purposes of the motion only, that there was an unauthorized abandonment of the branch line. Nevertheless, the defendant claims that for a violation of Section 1(18) the only relief available is found in Section 1(20) which grants the Court injunctive power, and that the general enforcement provisions of Section 8 do not apply. Defendant relies upon S.H. & W. Lumber Co. v. California & Oregon Coast R. Co., 154 F. Supp. 152 (D. Or. 1957) which held that a Court could not award damages under Section 8 for a carrier's violation of Section 1(18).
The defendant also urges that it has a complete defense to an action for damages for a violation of Section 1(4), alleging that the lawfully imposed embargo on the receipt of further freight after August 14, 1965 suspended any duty on the part of the carrier to provide transportation service. The plaintiff did not move before the Commission to set aside the embargo and it remained in effect until the Commission decision was rendered.
We look first to the claim under 49 U.S.C. § 1(18). The Supreme Court in Powell v. United States, 300 U.S. 276, 57 S. Ct. 470, 81 L. Ed. 643 (1967) spoke to the interplay of Section 1(18) and Section 1(20). Powell involved the alleged unauthorized extension of a branch line while this case involves the alleged unauthorized abandonment of a branch line. But both situations arise under and are covered by Section 1(18), and ...