171 N.Y. 589 | NY | 1902
This proceeding was instituted by the Still-water & Mechanicville Street Railway Company to obtain an order permitting it to unite and connect the tracks of its railroad with those of the Boston & Maine Railroad Company in order to facilitate the free interchanging of cars between the two roads.
The Stillwater & Meelianicville Street Railway Company was organized under the General Railroad Law of this state, with the right to transport both passengers and freight, and is operated as an electric railroad by the trolley system.
The Boston & Maine railroad is a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of Massachusetts, and is operating a steam railroad. It is contended upon its behalf that the statute does not authorize the court to compel a connection of the tracks of the two roads. The question, therefore, raised for our review is, as to the proper construction of the statute.
The Railroad Law of 1890 (Chapter 565, section 12) pro
It will be observed that this statute contains two provisions, one for the crossing of the tracks of another railroad at, above, or beneath grade; and the other provides for the intersection of the tracks of such railroads, and upon the making of such connections the roads shall receive from each other and forward to their destination all goods, merchandise and other property intended for points on their respective lines.
The court below seems to have been of the opinion that this statute had reference to steam railroads, and did not pertain to roads operated by electricity. In determining this question it becomes necessary to examine more fully the Bail-road Law for the purpose of ascertaining the legislative intent. By referring to section 2 of the act, we find provis
Again, passing to section 4, subdivision 5, of the act, we find that every railroad corporation, in addition to the power given by the General Stock Corporation Law, shall have power “ to cross, intersect, join or unite its railroad with any other rail'road before constructed, at any point on its route and upon the ground of such other railroad corporation, with the necessary turnouts, sidings, switches and other conveniences in furtherance of the objects of its connection.”
Section 34. “ Every railroad corporation shall start and run its cars for the transportation of passengers and property at regular times, to be fixed by public notice, and shall furnish sufficient accommodations for the transportation of all passengers and property which shall be offered for transportation at the place of starting, within a reasonable time previously thereto, and at the junctions of other railroads, and at the usual stopping places established for receiving and discharging way passengers and freight for that train ; and shall take, transport and discharge such passengers and property at, from and to, such places, on due payment of the fare or freight legally authorized therefor.”
■ Section 35. “ Every railroad corporation whose road, at or near the same place, connects with or is intersected by two or more railroads competing for its business, shall fairly and impartially afford to each of such connecting or intersecting roads equal terms of accommodation, privileges and facilities in the transportation of cars, passengers, baggage and freight over
It will be observed that each of these provisions of the statute, to which reference- has been made, expressly refers to every railroad corporation, and thereby includes every railroad incorporated under the provisions of section 2 of the act.
The contention is now made that to compel a track con-"' nection with steam railroads by electric, or street surface railroads for the interchanging of traffic, would be a burden" and a hardship to steam railroads that was not contemplated when the statute was passed; that to permit connections with^ steam railroads by the large number of electric railroads which have been, or are being constructed, would result in confusion' to the steam railroads and make their operation difficult.
The learned Appellate Division appears to have been impressed with this argument, for it states in its opinion that the proceeding and purpose is new, and obviously opens a field of inquiry of the greatest importance, not alone to railroad corporations, but to the general public, which has an
If one electric road were seeking a connection with another road operated by the same power, it would hardly be claimed that the provisions of section 12 did not apply. It is practically conceded that electric roads may be united with other roads of the same character and operated by the same power. But the statute has not limited the courts to the requiring of intersections and connections between roads of the same character. Very likely, electric roads tendering cars to steam roads for transportation should only offer those properly equipped with brakes and couplers, so that they may he taken and transported readily and safely. It inay be that additional regulations will become necessary in order that equal privi
It is said that the rights of the public in the streets and highways of our cities, towns and villages should be protected and that cars loaded with merchandise and freight should not be permitted to be run over street surface railroads. It may be that additional regulations should be provided either by statute or by ordinance, limiting the time in which cars of this character should be permitted to run over street surface railroads, especially in cities and large villages; but that the power exists to run such cars is no longer an open question in this court. This question was elaborately considered in the case of De Grauw v. Long Island Electric Railway Company (43 App. Div. 502), which case was affirmed in this court on the opinion below (163 N. Y. 597).
Again, bearing in mind the legislative purpose, its intent to our minds appears reasonably clear by the provision “ to cross, intersect, join or unite its railroad with any other railroad.” The word “ cross ” is used in connection with the word £l connect,” and the legislature could hardly have intended that one word should mean one kind of a railroad, and the other another kind. One of the most important rights which the legislature undertook to provide for and to protect was that of the right of one railroad to cross the tracks of another which had previously been constructed. Were it not for this, one road running north and south through the state could absolutely prevent the constructing of another extending east and west. The legislature was careful to make ample provisions for crossings in the same section in which intersections were ¡irovided for, and these provisions with reference to crossings have been held to apply to electric and street surface roads crossing steam roads, or of steam roads crossing electric or street surface roads. (Buffalo, B. & L. R. R. Co. v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 72 Hun, 533 ;
It appears to us that the legislature lias clearly empowered the court to order connections such as is sought by the petitioner in these proceedings. The order of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs.
Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.