Angelina N. R. R. Co. v. R.R. Comm

8 Citing cases

  1. Sullivan County R. R. v. Keefe

    82 A. 715 (N.H. 1912)

    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.

  2. Burlington Northern R. v. Dept. of Pub. Serv

    763 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 35 times
    Upholding Montana law requiring railroad to staff stations in towns of over 1,000 people

    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.

  3. Light Power Co. v. Hobbs

    72 N.H. 531 (N.H. 1904)   Cited 25 times
    In Rockingham County Light Power Co. v. Hobbs, 72 N.H. 531, 535, it is said "that the use of land for collecting, storing, and distributing electricity, for the purposes of supplying power and heat to all who may desire it, is a public use, similar in character to the use of land for collecting, storing, and distributing water for public needs — a use that is so manifestly public `that it has been seldom questioned and never denied.' 1 Lew. Em. Dom., s. 173."

    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.

  4. State v. Sunapee Dam Co.

    72 N.H. 114 (N.H. 1903)   Cited 8 times

    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.

  5. Missouri-Kansas-Texas v. Fowler

    290 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956)   Cited 2 times
    In Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas v. Fowler, 290 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1956), this Court held that the Railroad Commission was acting within its jurisdiction in hearing and determining the application of a railroad for permission to discontinue its agency at a railroad station except for a period of not less than three months during the cotton shipping season.

    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.

  6. San Antonio A. P. Ry. v. Railroad Comm

    275 S.W. 261 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925)

    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.

  7. Mosel v. San Antonio A. P. Ry. Co.

    249 S.W. 893 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  8. Railroad Comm. of Texas v. Pecos N. T

    212 S.W. 535 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)   Cited 3 times
    In Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pecos N.T. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 212 S.W. 535, it was declared that a place may become a "station" either by designation by the railroad, by designation by statute, or by being established as a siding or stopping place to receive and discharge passengers and freight. It would not seem to be necessary in order to constitute a station or station grounds that it should have baggage-rooms, ticket offices, company employees, and the other incidents of stations at the more important centers.

    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.