Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs

4 Citing cases

  1. Chicago, B. Q.R. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs

    78 F. Supp. 1010 (D. Mont. 1947)   Cited 2 times

    In all these cases the lack of patronage of railroad passenger service, the expense of maintenance in some of them apparently unnecessarily imposed upon the railroad, the other conveniences available to the public in train, bus, truck, and other services, were found to be the principal issues involved, from a consideration of which the Court was required to determine whether public convenience and necessity demanded further train service, and whether the order of the Board restoring such service should be considered arbitrary and unreasonable. Disuse by the public of the service provided in the present case is not unlike the fact situation presented in the other Montana cases wherein many authorities were cited to sustain the decisions reached by the Court. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Nagle, D.C., 16 F. Supp. 532; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Board of Railroad Commissioners of Montana, D.C., 28 F. Supp. 810; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Nagle, D.C., 28 F. Supp. 812; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Board of Railroad Commissioners of Montana, D.C., 46 F. Supp. 340; Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Mobile Ohio Railroad Co., 244 U.S. 388, 37 S.Ct. 602, 61 L.Ed. 1216; Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Comm., 251 U.S. 396, 40 S.Ct 183, 64 L.Ed. 323; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U.S. 585, 595, 599, 600, 604, 35 S.Ct. 429, 59 L.Ed. 735, L.R.A. 1917F, 1148, Ann.Cas. 1916A, 1; Norfolk Western R. Co. v. Conley, 236 U.S. 605, 609, 614, 35 S.Ct. 437, 59 L.Ed. 745; Delaware, L. W.R. Co. v. Van Santwood, D.C., 216 F. 252, 255; also Delaware, L. W.R. Co. v. Van Santwood, D.C., 232 F. 978. The Board's quotation from one of the Montana cases is appropriate here, and reads as follows: "Great loss is claimed by plaintiff in maintaining a service the public does not use, resulting in an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

  2. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Public Service Comm.

    77 F. Supp. 675 (E.D.S.C. 1948)   Cited 28 times
    Stating that an independent action in equity brought pursuant to an act of Congress deserves de novo review

    Service Comm. of West Virginia, 265 U.S. 70, 44 S.Ct. 439, 68 L.Ed. 904; Atchison, T. S.F.R. Co. v. R.R. Comm., 283 U.S. 380, 51 S.Ct. 553, 75 L.Ed. 1128; Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Oregon-Wash. R. etc. Co., 288 U.S. 14, 53 S.Ct. 266, 77 L.Ed. 588; Mississippi R. Comm. v. Mobile O.R. Co., 244 U.S. 388, 37 S.Ct. 602, 61 L.Ed. 1216; Chicago M. St. P.R. Co. v. Wisconsin, 238 U.S. 491, 35 S.Ct. 869, 59 L.Ed. 1423, L.R.A. 1916A, 1133; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U.S. 585, 35 S.Ct. 429, 59 L.Ed. 735, L.R.A. 1917F, 1148, Ann.Cas. 1916A, 1; State of Washington ex rel. Oregon R. N. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U.S. 510, 32 S.Ct. 535, 56 L.Ed. 863; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wharton, 207 U.S. 328, 28 S.Ct. 121, 52 L.Ed. 230; Delaware, L. W. Ry. Co. v. Van Santwood et al., D.C., 216 F. 252; Delaware, L. W. Ry. Co. v. Van Santvoord, 232 F. 978; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Nagle, D.C., 16 F. Supp. 532; Id., D.C., 28 F. Supp. 812; Northern Pac. Ry. v. Board of R.R. Com'rs, etc., D.C., 28 F. Supp. 810. A carrier, by accepting a franchise from a state, is bound to furnish reasonably adequate facilities for the accommodation and convenience of the public and this obligation may, of course, be enforced, but as was said by the Supreme Court in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wharton, 207 U.S. 328, 335, 28 S.Ct. 121, 123, 52 L.Ed. 230: "The term `adequate or reasonable facilities' is not in its nature capable of exact definition. It is a relative expression, and has to be considered as calling for such facilities as might be fairly demanded, regard being had, among other things, to the size of the place, the extent of the demand for transportation, the cost of furnishing the additional accommodations asked for, and to all other facts which would have a bearing upon the question of convenience and cost."

  3. N. Pac. Ry. v. Bd. of R.R. Com'rs of Mont.

    46 F. Supp. 340 (D. Mont. 1942)   Cited 7 times
    In Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of Montana, D.C., 46 F. Supp. 340, the Court set aside an order of the Board requiring the plaintiff to operate a train each way, a distance of 59 miles, between Billings and Red Lodge, Montana. They found the fact to be that a passenger bus line, owned by the plaintiff, was operated over a hard surfaced highway parallel to the railroad between Billings and Red Lodge and serving all the intervening towns.

    Although these latter arguments raise relevant questions for consideration, there still remains the principal determinative issue of public convenience and necessity which in the Court's opinion has not been established, and in respect to that issue the ruling of the defendant Board now under consideration would seem to have been unwarranted and unreasonable. The issues raised here appear to have been fairly considered in authorities cited by counsel and in decisions of three-Judge Courts in this district where like questions were involved. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Board of Railroad Commissioners, D.C., 28 F. Supp. 810; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Nagle, D.C., 16 F. Supp. 532, and the final decision in the latter case, D.C., 28 F. Supp. 812, and the authorities relied upon in both cases. In the opinion of the Court the communities served by trains numbered 205 and 206 will be adequately served by the buses and trucks that are in operation over the highway paralleling the railroad the entire distance from Billings to Red Lodge and by the tri-weekly freight trains, supplemented by the extensive operation of mercantile deliveries from Billings and by privately owned automobiles.

  4. Alabama Pub. Serv. Com'n v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co.

    45 So. 2d 449 (Ala. 1950)   Cited 15 times

    ut dispute that appellee sustains a financial loss from its system-wide operations, and curtailment of the service in question would effect a substantial saving. N. W. R. Co. v. Pub. Service Com., 265 U.S. 70; Atchison T. S. F. R. Co. v. Railroad Com., 283 U.S. 380, 51 S.Ct. 553, 75 L.Ed. 1128; I.C.C. v. Oregon-Wash. R. Co., 288 U.S. 14, 53 S.Ct. 266, 77 L.Ed. 588; Miss. Railroad Com. v. M. O. R. Co., 244 U.S. 388, 37 S.Ct. 602, 61 L.Ed. 1216; Chicago M. St. P. R. Co. v. Wisconsin, 238 U.S. 491, 35 S.Ct. 869, 59 L.Ed. 1432, L.R.A. 1916A, 1133; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. No. Dakota, 236 U.S. 585, 35 S.Ct. 429, 59 L.Ed. 735, L.R.A. 1917F, 1148, Ann.Cas. 1916A, 1; Washington ex rel. Oregon R. Nav. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U.S. 510, 32 S.Ct. 535, 56 L.Ed. 863; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wharton, 207 U.S. 328, 28 S.Ct. 121, 52 L.Ed. 230; Delaware L. W. R. Co. v. Van Santwood, D.C., 216 F. 252, Id., D.C., 232 F. 978; Great Northern R. Co. v. Nagle, D.C., 16 F. Supp. 532, 28 F. Supp. 812; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com., D.C., 28 F. Supp. 810; Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Com., 251 U.S. 396, 40 S.Ct. 183, 64 L.Ed. 323. The railroad is entitled to a fair return on its investment. Jack v. Williams, C.C., 113 F. 823; Thompson v. Boston M. R. Co., 86 N.H. 204, 166 A. 249; Alabama Pub. Service Com. v. So. Bell Tel. Tel. Co., Ala.Sup., 42 So.2d 655. The requirement to furnish facilities in excess of those which are essential is arbitrary and unreasonable, and would deprive the carrier of property without due process.