BILL IN EQUITY, to delimit a portion of the plaintiffs' right of way. The plaintiffs contend that some of the defendants are occupying and that others claim the right to occupy parts of their right of way which they acquired by the exercise of eminent domain. The plaintiffs' original location was similar to that of the Concord Claremont Railroad, which is set forth in Northern R. R. v. Railroad, 27 N.H. 183. The questions of law arising upon the defendants' demurrers were transferred without ruling from the April term, 1911, of the superior court by Pike, J. John E. Allen, Albin Sawyer, and Edgar W. Smith, for the plaintiffs.
Once the legislature has made its determination about which communities should have stations, the Commission is performing its statutory duty in enforcing the letter of the statute. See Angelina N.R.R. v. Railroad Comm'n, 212 S.W. 703, 705 (Tex.Civ.App. 1919). If the statute is constitutional, the lack of a hearing does not make it unconstitutional. A state does not violate due process by making a legislative determination rather than a particularized inquiry if the subject of the legislation does not interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights.
Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Fernald, 47 N.H. 444, 455. It has been held in this state that the use of land for each of the following purposes is a public use: For a turnpike (Petition Mr. Wash'n Road Co. 35 N.H. 134); for a toll bridge (Piscataqua Bridge v. Bridge, 7 N.H. 35); for a highway (Peirce v. Somersworth, 10 N.H. 369; Backus v. Lebanon, 11 N.H. 19); for a railroad (Concord R. R. v. Greely, 17 N.H. 47; Northern R. R. v. Railroad, 27 N.H. 183); for a public cemetery, it seems (Crowell v. Londonderry, 63 N.H. 42; Evergreen Cemetery Ass'n v. Beecher, 53 Conn. 551); and for making a survey by the United States as a part of the coast survey. Orr v. Quimby, 54 N.H. 590.
As the court are equally divided upon these questions and as to the propriety of ordering an amendment, the question arises what action can be taken in the case. This question was exhaustively considered in Northern R. R. v. Railroad, 50 N.H. 166, and the conclusion was reached that in that case nothing could be done except to continue the case for further advisement. In a later case, State v. Perkins, 53 N.H. 435, it is said that, as a result of the former case, a rule was adopted by which in civil cases and cases for misdemeanors verdicts depending upon questions of law reserved should generally be sustained when the court were equally divided, in the absence of a good reason for a different course.
Crosbyton-Southplains R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 169 S.W. 1038, writ refused, upholds the validity of a statute requiring railroads to build sidings and spur tracks sufficient to handle the business tendered such railroads, when ordered to do so by the Railroad Commission. In Angelina N. R. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 212 S.W. 703, 707, writ refused, the Court held that an order of the Railroad Commission requiring a railroad to provide and maintain at a station on its lines adequate depot facilities and to place an agent in charge thereof was sustained, the Court saying: "All that appellee sought to do was to compel obedience to a mandatory statute which commanded appellant to build a suitable house to accommodate its passenger and freight traffic at Etoile.
The burden rested upon appellant to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that the order of the Railroad Commission was unreasonable and unjust. R.S. art. 6658; Angelina, etc., Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission (Tex.Civ.App.) 212 S.W. 703. We think that appellant has failed to discharge such burden, and that the order of the commission in the instant case was one clearly authorized by law. Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The statute specially clothes the Railroad Commission with the power to have provided and maintained depots, and it can compel railway companies to build depots where it is deemed best for public convenience and comfort. Railroad Commission v. Railway, 102 Tex. 393, 117 S.W. 794; Angelina R. R. Co. v. R. R. Commission (Tex. Civ. App.) 212 S.W. 703. Article 6693, Vernon's Sayles' Civ.Stats., provides that railroad companies shall provide and maintain adequate, comfortable, and clean depots and depot buildings at their several stations and article 6694 gives the Railroad Commission of Texas the power to require compliance with the preceding article.
In support of this contention articles 6693 and 6552 of the Revised Statutes are cited and discussed. Article 6693 makes it the duty of railroad companies to provide adequate depot buildings at their several stations, and if Hurley is a station, the only question that can arise as to the unjustness and unreasonableness of an order requiring the erection of a depot building there is whether the sum required to be expended is unreasonable. Angelina Neches River R. R. Co. v. R. R. Commission, 212 S.W. 703, recently decided by this court. Article 6552 requires the furnishing of sufficient accommodations for the transportation of passengers and property, and it may be admitted that, if Hurley had become a station, an order requiring sufficient accommodations for the transportation of passengers and property could not be unjust and unreasonable, because it would exact only what the law requires, but no such order is under consideration in this case.