96 Neb. 584 | Neb. | 1914
These complainants made complaint before the state railway commission against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, Morris Transportation Company, Lincoln Traction Company, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railway Company, and the Chi
The complaint before the railway commission alleged: (1) That the complainants are residents of College View, and “are each engaged and employed in a business which is unfavorably affected to a substantial degree by the matters and freight rates hereinafter complained of. * * * That said College View is an organized village duly incorporated under the laws of this state, having a population of about 1,500, and is one of the college suburbs of the city of Lincoln, and is immediately adjacent thereto, being connected with the city of Lincoln by two street railway lines which form a part of the street railway sys
“(2) Complainant alleges that University Place is not upon any line of railroad other than a spur from the Rock Island road which was recently extended to said University Place, and the nearest line of railroad to the village of Bethany is the Missouri Pacific road, which passes near the south boundary line of said village of Bethany at a distance of little over a mile from the business section of said village, said railway maintaining no depot nor station other than a flag station and siding for the accommodation of said village of Bethany at about said distance from said business section, while, on the other hand, both the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad and the Chicago, Rock
“(8) That the success of the business represented by these complainants, as well as that of all others engaged in business at said village, as' well as the upbuilding, growth, and prosperity of said village, depend to a large extent upon the ability of the business interests of said village of College View to be placed upon an equality with other suburbs of said city of Lincoln, and especially with University Place and Bethany Heights, in the matter of freight rates, shipping facilities, and switching privileges and advantages, in order that car-load freight may be shipped to said College View upon the same terms as those afforded said other suburbs, and that, if these rates and privileges be denied to said village, said College View will be illegally and unjustly discriminated against in those particulars, and great and irreparable injury will result to said village, and to the business interests and inhabitants thereof.
“(4) That prior to the organization of this commission the several railroads involved herein, by an illegal, unfair combination and agreement between them, created a switching district, and established switching limits for said city of Lincoln, which limits included the,city of University Place and the village of Bethany Heights, but ex-
“(5) That by reason of the fact that College View is outside of said switching limits, so unjustly and arbitra
The answer of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company alleges: “That the village of College View, in Lancaster county, Nebraska, is not located upon the line of railroad of the said respondent company, but is distant therefrom a mile and a half; that at a point where the Lincoln Traction Company intersects and crosses this respondent’s line of railroad, your respondent maintains a ■spur that connects with the said traction company’s street railway line at a point distant from said village of College View a mile and a half, as aforesaid; that said connection with the traction company’s railway was made under and pursuant to a private agreement whereby this respondent was to set cars upon the spur herein referred to, ■to be disposed of and hauled to the said village of College View by the said traction company under a special ■and private contract made and entered into by the said traction company and the sanitarium, maintained, owned and operated by the Seventh Day Adventists’ Association located in said village.” It denied any combination to fix rates or switching district.
The answer of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company alleges: “That this railroad designates its ■own switching limits without consultation or consent of any other railroad, except in that part of Lincoln where the possession of the territory is in common, or is parallel to each other, and where the facilities are such that immediate and economical exchange can be made of traffic, and that College View and the complainants herein are not
In Hooper Telephone Company v. Nebraska Telephone Company, ante, p. 245, the practice in case of appeal directly from the railway commission to this court was considered. It Avas there pointed out that the original act (laws 1907, ch. 90) recognized three different methods of questioning the orders of the railway commission. Subdivision e, sec. 5, refers to the proceeding in equity which was allowed in the absence of any statute and prescribes the manner of proceeding in such case. Section 11 of the act provided for proceeding in the district court to en
“A finding that the rates charged by railroads for shipments to a particular point are unreasonable in themselves, and in violation of section 1 of the interstate commerce act (24 Stat. 379; U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154) ■cannot properly be based on evidence which only tends to •show that they are too high as compared with the rates charged between the initial points and one or two other points.” Interstate Commerce Commission v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 120 Fed. 934.
“A reduced rate upon a particular commodity cannot be :said to be reasonable and just when it is established without regard to whether the existing rate is high or low, as compared with rates on other commodities, and without regard to whether it will pay the cost of the service rendered, or yield a fair return to the carrier upon the capital invested.” Morgan’s L. & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 53 So. 890 (127 La. 636).
“An order of the railroad commissioners that defendant railroad company transfer cars delivered to it by another company, from its station to another point, as a switching service and at switching rates, will not be enforced where such point is beyond the yard limits, and the service rendered is on the main line, and is done under orders, as in case of trains, and not under the direction of the yardmaster.” State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 55 N. W. 331 (88 Ia. 445). This last case cited was approved by this court in State v. Sioux City, O. & W. R. Co., 46 Neb.
It is conceded that the line of the Rock Island road does not pass through the village of College View. It runs near the corporate limits of the village, and a mile or more from the business part thereof, and the company maintains a side-track at that point upon which it places cars for unloading, upon request. This side-track is connected with the street railway, operated by the Lincoln Traction Company, and it appears that the Morris Transportation Company, through some traffic arrangement with the traction company, transfers cars from this side-track over the line of the traction company, under a contract which it has with a private company in College View, at a fixed charge, as agreed between the College View party.and the Morris Transportation Company. It is also conceded that the line of the Burlington company passes through the corporate limits of the village of College View about one and a quarter miles from the business part of the village and maintains two sidings at that point, but has no station or ■office of any kind at or near the village of College View. These sidings are seven or eight miles from its Lincoln station and from its transfer facilities with other roads. The Rock Island road has a station and side-tracks at University Place, but does not pass through Bethany Heights, and the Missouri Pacific railroad maintains a flag station at Bethany Heights, but not in University Place. It seems clear that under these conditions the fact that the charges for the delivery of intrastate freight in car-load lots, through the city of Lincoln to Bethany Heights or University Place are less than charges for the same services over the Rock Island and by way of the traction company’s lines to College View, and is less than the same services over the Burlington lines at a distance of seven or eight miles from its station and transfer grounds, is not sufficient of itself to justify the order of the commission.
The findings of the commission show quite in detail the charges on freight in car-load lots to College VieAv as com
The order complained of is therefore reversed and the cause remanded, without prejudice to further proceedings, before the commission, if the parties are so advised.
Reversed,