delivered the opinion of the Court.
John Followay, one of the defendants in error, a merchant at a village called Blackberry City in Mingo County, West Virginia, filed complaint with the Public Service Commission of that State, praying that the Norfolk & Western Railway Company, plaintiff in error, be required to furnish a suitable crossing and to provide reasonable facilities for the use of shippers at that place. After a hearing, at which much evidence was introduced, the commission made an order which directed the railway company to construct and maintain a roadway for vehicles across its tracks at McCarr Siding. It limited the use of the crossing to the transportation of freight consigned to the complainant and other shippers, and required that the entrance to the crossing at the north side of the track be closed by a gate to be furnished by complainant and to be by him kept locked, except when the crоssing was being so used; and directed that, while the crossing was being used by complainant for the transportation of goods across the tracks in vehicles, he should provide a watсhman to give notice of approaching trains.
The company instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court of Appeals to suspend and set aside the order, and *72 therе contended that it was repugnant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Eourteenth Amendment. The contention was overruled, and the order wаs affirmed. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 91 W. Va. 414. Plaintiff in error seeks to have the judgment reversed on the ground of such repugnancy.
It is provided by statute that every railroad company may be required by the commissiоn to establish and maintain such suitable public facilities and conveniences as may be reasonable and just. § 4, c. 15-0, Barnes’ Code, 1918; Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission, supra, 419.
The facts may be briefly stated. At McCarr Siding, there аre four parallel tracks, — an eastbound main line, a westbound main line, a track between these, and a branch line extending across the Tug River. There is also a spur track еxtending southeasterly from the main line tracks to the tipple of the Allbum Coal Corporation and intersecting the approach to the proposed crossing about 200 fеet therefrom.
The railroad tracks are on the north bank of the Tug River which at this place is the boundary between West Virginia and Kentucky. The village adjoins the company’s right of wаy on the north and is located on a bluff considerably higher than the railroad tracks. Its population is about 100. Complainant’s store is on a hillside a short distance north of the tracks. The Allbum Coal Corporation owns a doubledecked bridge across the river almost directly opposite the store. The upper level of the bridge is used for transportation of coal, and the lower level is used for pedestrian and vehicular travel. Though privately owned, it has been used by the public for a number of years as a part of thе traveled way between the village and the territory south of the river. By reason of a sharp curve in the tracks and a deep cut, the *73 view of the crossing is obstructed, so that enginemen on approaching trains can see it for only a short distance.
McCarr Siding was established for the accommodation of the Allbum Coal Company about 10 or 12 years prior to the filing of the complaint. The tariffs of the railway company and its shipping instructions state that the siding is a carload billing point. It is also a prepay station to which frеight in carload and less than carload lots may be shipped, to be delivered at the risk of consignees. The coal company and complainant receive by far the larger part of the freight. The amount received by others is small. When the mines of the Allburn Coal Corporation are fully operated, eight or ten carloads of coal are loaded daily. Other outgoing shipments, consisting principally of boxes, containers and household goods, are also made. The siding is a flag station for three passengеr trains, two eastbound and one westbound daily. For that purpose it serves about 1000 people living in the vicinity, including many on the Kentucky side of the river. From 10 to 30 people get on аnd off trains at McCarr daily. Mail for the village is carried by railroad and delivered at the siding.
Complainant has been engaged in business in the village for many years. He handles merchandisе in substantial volume. His freight bill amounts to about $300 a month. The goods come in less than carload and in carload lots and are delivered by the company at the siding. Most of them arе brought from the west. Less than carload lots are deposited by the company on the ground on the south side of the tracks opposite his place of business, and carloads are delivered at approximately the same place. It is necessary for him to move his freight across the four intervening tracks. No station facilities have evеr been furnished at the siding, and the commission found that the company’s failure to afford reasonable facilities for the removal of complainant’s freight *74 from its premises cаuses him damage, delay and inconvenience.
Because of the danger attending the use of the crossing, the railway company, shortly before the commencement of these proceedings, planted posts about five feet apart for a distance of about 50 feet along the right of way on the north side of its tracks to obstruct the crоssing and prevent its use for vehicular traffic. This compelled complainant to carry the freight consigned to him by hand across the tracks at a cost greatly in excess of thе expense of hauling it in vehicles.
The State, in the exercise of its police power, directly or through an authorized commission, may require railroad carriers to prоvide reasonably adequate and suitable facilities for the convenience of the communities served by them. But its power to regulate is not unlimited. It may not unnecessarily or аrbitrarily ..trammel or interfere with the operation and conduct of railroad properties and business.
Mississippi Railroad Commission
v.
Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co.,
*75 The facts in this case clearly show the need оf some facilities at McCarr Siding for the use of the patrons of the railroad. The order directing the company to construct and maintain a crossing for the use of vehiclеs to haul the freight across the tracks is a light burden upon the carrier and cannot be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary. It need not be considered whether the comрany, in the interest of the safety of those using the crossing, lawfully might have been required to furnish the gate and provide the watchman.
To support its contention that the order is unconstitutiоnal, the company asserts that the order takes from it and gives to complainant the control of the crossing; that it prevents the use of the crossing without the consent and participation of complainant, and compels the company to enter into an arrangement or agreement with complainant making him its agent to control thе use of the crossing and to guard it while being used. These contentions are without merit. The order does not impair or interfere with the company’s right to permit the crossing to be used for purposes other than those specified in the order or prevent the company from guarding the crossing by watchmen or otherwise as it sees fit. Manifestly the limitation upon thе use of the .crossing and the imposition of duties on the complainant in respect of the gate and the guarding of the crossing were for the benefit of the company. The effect of these provisions was to relieve the carrier of a part of the burden and expense of providing facilities deemed reasonable and necessаry for the removal of freight consigned to complainant and others at the siding. We find nothing in the order that deprives the company of its property without due process of law or denies to it the equal protection of the laws.
Judgment affirmed.