Opinion
NO. 22688
Decided April 15, 1931.
Public utilities commission — Railroads — Change from agency to nonagency or prepay station — Section 504-3, General Code — Peculiar facts of each case determinative — Facts and circumstances to be considered — Business volume, accessibility to other stations, maintenance cost and financial return — Increased industrial activities improbable, public inconvenience not great, and financial loss.
1. In determining the question whether a railroad company may change one of its stations from an agency to a non-agency or prepay station, each case must be determined upon the peculiar facts attendant thereon. The volume of business done at such station, its proximity to other stations, the accessibility thereof, the cost of maintaining such agency station, the financial loss, if any, to the railroad company, due regard for the welfare of the public and the cost of operating such service, and probabilities of future development are all circumstances to be taken into consideration.
2. Where there is an improbability of a growth of industrial activity increasing freight and passenger service at an agency station of a railroad, and the public inconvenience in transacting its business requiring an agency station is not great, because of the proximity and accessibility of other agency stations of such railroad, an application to change such agency station to a non-agency or prepay station is not unreasonable where it appears that the maintenance of such agency station by the railroad company is at a continued financial loss, and such application should be granted.
ERROR to the Public Utilities Commission.
This matter comes to this court on error from the Public Utilities Commission. The record discloses that the New York Central Railroad Company filed an application with the Public Utilities Commission for authority to withdraw the agent at its station at Georgesville in Franklin county and thereafter maintain the same as a nonagency or prepay station.
Georgesville is located on the Cincinnati and Sandusky division of the line of the applicant 13.5 miles west of Columbus and lies 3.5 miles west of Galloway and 3.2 miles east of Lilly Chapel. The company proposes to handle such Georgesville business as might require the services of an agent at its station at Galloway but of course the public would be permitted to make any shipments from any station it might choose. A macadam road usable through the entire year connects the towns of Galloway'and Georgesville; the distance by highway being about 4 miles. There is also telephone service between Georgesville and Galloway, free on one line and with a toll charge of ten cents on another line. The population of Georgesville is about two hundred, and it has three groceries, one confectionery, one blacksmith shop, and one garage. There is no bank, grain elevator, or stockpen located there, and no United States mail is handled by the agent. No public bus or truck service was available at the time of the filing of the application, and the grocers' and mercantile supplies were delivered largely by private trucks.
The matter came on for hearing before the commission, and the company offered evidence tending to show the character of its business and the amounts of receipts and expenses for the years of 1927, 1928 and 1929, claiming that there was such a financial loss as to justify the request to change the Georgesville Station from an agency to a nonagency or prepay station, and that no such inconvenience to the public would be occasioned thereby as to make its application unreasonable. The matter was protested by certain local residents of Georgesville and nearby territory.
The record shows that, upon hearing and consideration, the commission, "being duly advised in the premises and having due regard for the welfare of the public and the cost of maintaining said facility, finds that said proposed change in character of the station at Georgesville is not reasonable. It is, therefore, ordered that said application be, and hereby the same is, denied." To this order the railroad company excepted, and, motion for rehearing being denied, error was prosecuted to this court.
Mr. S.W. Baxter, Mr. T.A. McCormack and Mr. H.N. Quigley, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Gilbert Bettman, attorney general, and Mr. T.J. Herbert, for defendant in error.
An examination of the record discloses that for the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 the average total expense of maintaining the agency at Georgesville was $1,788.83, of which amount the agent's salary formed almost the entire amount, to wit, $1,659.21. During those three years the total receipts for freight, passenger service, and miscellaneous revenues amounted to considerably less than the expenses; considering the normal business transacted during those three years, and excluding a special item hereinafter alluded to, the average annual loss to the railroad company for maintaining this agency station was over $600. However, during that three years, there was received as a part of the revenues for the year 1927 the sum of $4,143.90, being freight for stone shipped to Georgesville for a special road work then in process of construction. In the year 1928 the sum of $216.13 was received for freight on stone shipped for the same purpose on the same job. If these two items were to be included in the total receipts for the years 1927 and 1928, the total receipts for the three years would exceed the total expense, and the balance would be in favor of the railroad company. However, this item of freight on stone for the road job should not be considered a regular source of income to the railroad company, nor as a part of the receipts of the station which could be expected to repeat, but should be looked upon as purely a temporary item arising from the fact that Georgesville was a favorable point to which material for the construction of the road might be shipped. The job being completed, no further income from that source will accrue to the agency at Georgesville. What future public improvements may be is purely conjectural, although there is something in the record upon that subject.
The agency at Galloway is on a macadam road usable throughout the year, at a distance from Georgesville of 4 miles by the highway and 3.5 miles by the railroad. The agency at Lilly Chapel is but 3.2 miles away, in the other direction. The prospects for future industrial development at Georgesville, as shown by the record, do not seem to justify the hope of a return of freight and passenger business, and of general industrial activity, sufficient to show a favorable balance in financial returns for that station.
The inconvenience to the public by being compelled to use the Galloway station, or the Lilly Chapel station, when necessary to transact business personally with an agent, is not so great that it may not be reasonably met by the public. Of course shipments to the Gcorgesville station may still be made.
This situation is but the logical sequence from changed conditions and methods of transportation incident to the coming of the automobile and motor-truck. From an examination of the entire record, and having in view the provisions of Section 504-3, General Code, we feel that the facts justify the granting of the application of the railroad company as a reasonable request. To deny it is to require the railroad company to sustain a yearly loss out of proportion to the inconvenience the public may suffer by changing the station to a prepay or nonagency station. The principles of Cincinnati Northern Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 119 Ohio St. 568, 165 N.E. 38, 40, and the authorities therein cited, are applicable, and our conclusion is that the findings of the commission are unreasonable under the circumstances, "having due regard for the welfare of the public and the cost of operating the service," and it therefore becomes our duty to reverse the same.
Order reversed.
MARSHALL, C.J., JONES, MATTHIAS, ALLEN, KINKADE and ROBINSON, JJ., concur.