Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Municipalities of Holdrege

41 N.W.2d 157, 152 Neb. 352, 1950 Neb. LEXIS 84
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 9, 1950
Docket32706
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 41 N.W.2d 157 (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Municipalities of Holdrege) 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
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Municipalities of Holdrege, 41 N.W.2d 157, 152 Neb. 352, 1950 Neb. LEXIS 84 (Neb. 1950).

Opinion

Messmore, J.

The Chicago, Burlington" & Quincy Railroad Company, a common carrier of passengers and freight in Nebraska and other states, applied to the Nebraska State Railway Commission, hereinafter referred to as the commission, for permission to discontinue motor passenger trains numbered 151 and 152 operated daily except Sunday on the branch line of the railroad betweeen Holdrege, Nebraska, and the Nebraska-Colorado state line. From Holdrege west to the state line dividing the states of Nebraska and Colorado are the following towns and stations: Loomis, Bertrand, Smithfield, El wood, Eustis, Kingston, Farnam, Ingham, Moorefield, Curtis, May-wood, Wellfleet, Somerset, Dickens, Wallace, Grainton, Elsie, Madrid, Grant, Brandon, and Venango, Nebraska. The combined population of the towns served by this branch line in Nebraska is estimated at 12,000,' and the area served is estimated at 12,000 square miles. The *354 basic industries are agriculture, livestock production, dairying, and poultry raising. The municipalities named and the Omaha Cold Storage Company appeared before the commission, represented by counsel, and filed objections to the application. On the issues presented by the pleadings, and after an extended hearing, the commission made findings of fact against the applicant and in favor of the protestants, and denied the application. From this order the applicant appealed to this court and submitted for review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the order.

The appellant railroad company contends (1) that the findings, conclusions, and order of the • commission are contrary to the evidence, not sustained by any substantial evidence, and are also contrary to law; and (2) the findings, conclusions, and order of the commission are unreasonable, unjust, and arbitrary.

The commission acquired jurisdiction and had power under the Constitution and the statutes to consider and determine the issues. Art. IV, § 20, Constitution of Nebraska; § 75-201, R. S. 1943.

“On an appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of the Nebraska State Railway Commission administrative or legislative in nature, the only questions to be determined are whether the Nebraska State Railway Commission acted within the scope of its authority and if the order complained of is reasonable and not arbitrarily made.” In re Application of Neylon, 151 Neb. 587, 38 N. W. 2d 552. See, also, Furstenberg v. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co., 132 Neb. 562, 272 N. W. 756.

The distance from Holdrege, Nebraska, to Sterling, Colorado, is 230 miles, of which 162 miles is between Holdrege and Venango, Nebraska. The distance between Venango, Nebraska, and Sterling, Colorado, is 68 miles.

Main line connections to other points are made at Holdrege, Nebraska, and Sterling, Colorado.

Trains 151 and 152 are primarily passenger trains and *355 run daily except Sunday in each direction between Holdrege, Nebraska, and Sterling, Colorado. ,The equipment of the trains consists of a 400-horsepower gas-electric motor car and a trailer passenger coach. They carry passengers, mail, baggage, cream, and express. Each train requires a crew of one motorman, one conductor, and one brakeman-baggageman for their operation. In addition thereto, the United States Post Office Department operates on said trains a railway post office in charge of a railway postal clerk. These trains, for a long time, have been operating on a schedule as follows: Train 151 leaves Holdrege, Nebraska, at 5:40 a. m., mountain time, passing through and serving the communities as above set out, and arrives at Venango, Nebraska, at 11:45 a. m., and at Sterling, Colorado, at 2:10 p. m., mountain time. Train 152 leaves Sterling, Colorado, at 6 a. m., mountain time, arrives at Venango, Nebraska, at 8:14 a. m., and at Holdrege at 1:40 p. m., mountain time. The appellant also operates on this branch line mixed trains 153 and 154 tri-weekly, now scheduled westward to leave Holdrege on Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday, and to arrive from the west at Holdrege on the same days.

The jurisdiction of the commission to regulate the transportation service rendered by trains 151 and 152 is limited to the transportation of persons or property wholly between points in Nebraska, that is, intrastate commerce. See, Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 82 F. Supp. 368; 15 C. J. S., Commerce, § 55, p. 372. -

The record discloses that trains 151 and 152 have been operated over this branch line for a great many years, and before the event of common usage of the automobile provided the only rapid and convenient means of travel between places on, and to and from points on, this branch line. In 1923 and 1924, train 151 averaged 18 and 14 passengers per train mile, and train 152 averaged 16 and 13.2 passengers per train mile. Subsequently there *356 was a material decline in the number of passengers on these trains, and then an increase was evident during the war years of 1942 to 1945, due to the rationing of gasoline and tires, and the induction into military service of draftees. These trains had been operated by steam power, and in 1940, due to decline in passenger service, the motor car was put on, and also a combination passenger and baggage car instead of a full passenger coach, to reduce expenses to conform to revenues. Since the war years the passenger traffic has declined to almost abandonment of such services. During the 12 months ending with August 31,1948, train 151 carried an average of 2.6 passengers and train 152 carried an average of 2.3 passengers per train mile between Holdrege and the Nebraska-Colorado state line. In September 1948, train 151 averaged 2.0 passengers and train 152 averaged 1.4 passengers per train mile in Nebraska. From October 1948, to March 1949, inclusive, excluding January when operation of the trains was suspended on account of heavy snow, train 151 averaged 1.8 passengers and train 152 averaged 1.7 passengers per train mile in Nebraska. In considering the average number of passengers per train mile there is taken into account the number of passengers carried and the distance each travels.

The passenger revenue on train 151 for the 12 months ending August 31, 1948, was 6.24 cents and train 152 was 5.52 cents per train mile. During the 12 months ending with August 31, 1948, train 151 averaged 9.2 passengers and train 152 averaged 8.4 passengers per trip between Holdrege and the Nebraska-Colorado state line. The wages paid employees to operate these trains amount to 26.33 cents per train mile, which is in excess of the passenger revenue, without considering other operative expenses.

There is not much contradiction in the testimony that trains 151 and 152 are operated at a substantial loss. A net loss of $50,856 is shown for the 12 months ending August 1948, and for the same period, between Holdrege *357 and the Nebraska-Colorado state line the revenues were $35,293, out-of-pocket expenses $70,161, net loss $34,868. For the six months, September 1948 to March 1949, revenues $15,584, out-of-pocket expense $39,973, net loss $24,389.

The appellees contend that the appellant’s railroad system as a whole operates at a profit, as does the branch line in question.

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

Related

Thompson v. Heineman
Nebraska Supreme Court, 2015
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Stamford Elevator Co.
138 N.W.2d 816 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1965)
Application of Chicago, B. & Qrr Co.
138 N.W.2d 816 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1965)
Southern Pacific Co. v. ARIZONA CORPORATION COM'N
404 P.2d 692 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1965)
Maine Central Railroad v. Public Utilities Commission
163 A.2d 633 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1960)
City of Newton v. Department of Public Utilities
160 N.E.2d 108 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
In re Union Pacific Railroad
340 P.2d 1103 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1959)
Western Maryland Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission
106 S.E.2d 923 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1959)
Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. Save the Trains Ass'n
91 N.W.2d 312 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1958)
Application of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co.
87 N.W.2d 630 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1958)
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad v. Farmers Union Creamery
87 N.W.2d 616 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1958)
Chicago & North Western Railway Co v. City of Norfolk
60 N.W.2d 662 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1953)
Shupe Ex Rel. Shupe v. County of Antelope
59 N.W.2d 710 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1953)
Commuters' Committee v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
88 A.2d 420 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1952)
Safeway Cabs, Inc. v. Honer
52 N.W.2d 266 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1952)
City of Norfolk v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
67 S.E.2d 99 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1951)
Norfolk v. C. & O. RY. CO.
192 Va. 828 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 N.W.2d 157, 152 Neb. 352, 1950 Neb. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-burlington-quincy-railroad-v-municipalities-of-holdrege-neb-1950.