Byington v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

148 N.W. 520, 96 Neb. 584, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 103
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 11, 1914
DocketNo. 18,227
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 148 N.W. 520 (Byington v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Byington v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co., 148 N.W. 520, 96 Neb. 584, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 103 (Neb. 1914).

Opinion

Sedgwick, J.

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[585]*585cago & Northwestern Railway Company, and asked for an order of the commission “including the village of College View Within the switching limits of the city of Lincoln, upon equal terms' with University Place and Bethany Heights, and that the car-load rate charged by said Morris Transportation Company be reduced to such reasonable sum as will pay to said company only a fair and reasonable return for the service rendered, and will permit said railroads to absorb the same as a part of the switching charge incurred in switching cars from other roads to College View, and that said roads be required to absorb such switching charges, including that portion which shall go to the Rock Island and Burlington roads, as well as that portion which shall go to the said Morris Transportation Company, and for such other and further and different orders as shall be necessary to correct the conditions herein complained of, and to place College View upon an equality with Bethany Heights and University Place as to rates and switching facilities.” The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company filed separate answers before the commission. Evidence was taken upon the issues joined. The commission made an order granting substantially the relief asked for, and the two answering railroad companies have taken appeals from the order of the commission directly to this court under the provisions of chapter 94, laws 1911; Rev. St. 1913, sec. 6132.

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[586]*586tem of said city of Lincoln, which system is owned and operated by the Lincoln Traction Company, and said village is also connected with the telephone system existing in said city, and the inhabitants talk over said telephone system without any toll charges therefor; that said village also gets all the electric current for lighting said village and for the use of its inhabitants from one of the lighting plants in the city of Lincoln, and the sanitary sewer of said village is connected with the sewer system of said city; that the territory lying between the city of Lincoln and said village is practically all laid out into lots and blocks and suburban residences and is purely urban in character, and that in every sense of the word said village is distinctly a suburb of said city of Lincoln, and the civic life and business interests of said city and said village are intimately connected and interdependent; that in the above mentioned particulars, as well as in point of distance from said city, the relations of said village to said city are substantially similar to those of University Place and Bethany Heights, and in fact said College Yiew is much more closely and intimately connected with said city and sustains a much more distinctly suburban relation to said city than does the village of Bethany, and that there is shipped to said village of College Yiew approximately 400 cars of freight per annum in car-load lots.

“(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 [587]*587Island & Pacific Bailway pass the said village of College View at a distance of a little over a mile from the business section, the said Burlington line being actually within the corporate limits of said village at one point and having two sidings for the setting out of cars at said point, and said Boclc Island road passes within a few feet of the west line of the corporate limits of said College View, and has a siding for the setting out of cars at said point, and also a spur which actually extends into the corporate limits of said village and connects with the Lincoln Traction Company’s line which enters College View and affords switching facilities by which loaded freight cars from said Bock Island line can be switched and transferred into the very center of the business section of said village and is actually used for that purpose.

“(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-[588]*588eluded the village of College View, and said switching limits are still unlawfully maintained by said railroads, to the great damage and injury of said last named village.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Safeway Cabs, Inc. v. Honer
48 N.W.2d 672 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1951)
Furstenberg v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.
272 N.W. 756 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1937)
Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co. v. City of Omaha
252 N.W. 407 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1934)
Farmers & Merchants Telephone Co. v. Orleans Community Club
218 N.W. 583 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1928)
Southern Nebraska Power Co. v. Taylor
192 N.W. 317 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1923)
Rawlings v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
190 N.W. 569 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 N.W. 520, 96 Neb. 584, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byington-v-chicago-rock-island-pacific-railway-co-neb-1914.