111 Ky. 960 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1901
Opinion of the court by
Reversing.
This is an application for a mandatory injunction by the Pittsburg & Kanawha Coal Company, requiring the Louisville & Nasihville Kailroad Company to. furnish cars
The first question to be considered is the validity of the contract between the railroad company and the coal company, giving them a monopoly of the business of shipping coal over this switch. Railroad companies are quasi public corporations, created for the purpose of ex'ercising the functions and performing the duties of common carriers. These duties are defined by law, and. in accepting their charters they necessarily took with them -all the duties and liabilities annexed; and they ar© required to supply, to the extent of their resources, adequate facilites for the transaction of all business offered, and to deal fairly and impartially with their patrons. McCoy v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 13 Fed., 5; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S., 126 (24 L. Ed., 77). And they have no right to contract with
We deem it unnecessary in this proceeding to determine what may be the remedies of the Campbell Creek Coa.1 Company growing out of the inability of the railroad company to perform its contract, but :we are clearly of the opinion that they can not at this late day prohibit the use of that part of the track which passes through their property, as it is evident that large pecuniary investments have been made by other parties which are dependent for their profitable operation upon the continued use of the switch track.
The contention is made for the railroad company that appellee is not entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring them to fulfill their corporate obligations to furnish impartial service, because they have adequate relief in a court of law by suit to recover damages for the wrong done. Undoubtedly this remedy exists, but it is not the only means of relief which the law provides. By accepting its charter the railroad company assumed obligations1 to the public and the duty of enforcing these obligations, in the absence of some statute providing a different remedy, necessarily devolves upon courts of equity. Their juris
But there is another feature presented by this case which remains to be considered. Appellee has no spur or side track from Lowell street into its grounds, and seeks in this proceeding to compel the railroad company to stand the freight ears on their track in the center of Lowell street in front of their property, and to be loaded, and it does not appear that the city has ever authorized such a use of the street. It is manifest that if appellant is required to halt cars -on its track in front of appellee’s place, and leave them there to be loaded and unloaded, it will materially obstruct the use of the switch track by parties living beyond appellee’s yard, and might subject appellant to prosecution by the city for unlawfully obstructing a public street and converting it into a private coal yard. In the absence of express authority from the city of Newport authorizing such use of the street, and conclusive testimony that it would not be prejudicial to the use of such switch by the appellant’s other patrons, we think the court erred in granting the injunction.
For this reason the judgment granting the injunction is reversed, and cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.