Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Nebraska State Railway Commission

295 N.W. 389, 138 Neb. 767, 1940 Neb. LEXIS 202
Nebraska Supreme Court·Decided December 20, 1940·No. No. 31046·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Rose, J.

This proceeding was commenced before the Nebraska state railway commission and there prosecuted to a final order. The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, a common carrier , of passengers and freight in Nebraska and in other states, applied for permission to discontinue motor passenger trains numbered 97 and 98 w’hich are operated daily except Sunday on the branch line of railroad between Beatrice and Holdrege. Between those cities, the towns and stations, east and west, are Hoag, DeWitt, Swanton, Western, Tobias, Ohiowa, Strang, Shickley, Ong, Edgar, Deweese, Lawrence, Rosemont, Blue Hill, Bladen, Campbell, Upland, Hildreth, Wilcox, and Sacremento. The municipalities named appeared before the commission by counsel and remonstrated against the granting of the application. On issues raised by formal pleadings, the commission, after hearing the parties at length, made [769] findings of fact against applicant and in favor of remonstrants and dismissed the proceeding. Applicant appealed to the supreme court and submitted for review the suffi•ciency of the evidence to sustain the order.

The problem presented to the commission involved regulation of public transportation services. The commission acquired jurisdiction and had power under the Constitution and statutes to consider and determine the issue. Const, art. IV, sec. 20; Comp. St. 1929, sec. 75-201. The only question on appeal therefore is the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that the order denying the applicant permission to discontinue motor passenger trains 97 and 98 was not unreasonable or arbitrary. Furstenberg v. Omaha & C. B. Street R. Co., 132 Neb. 562, 272 N. W. 756. Where, however, a final order of the commission depriving a common carrier of substantial rights is based on findings without support in the evidence, it is unreasonable, arbitrary and reversible on appeal. Northern P. Ry. Co. v. Department of Public Works, 268 U. S. 39, 45 S. Ct. 412; Publix Cars, Inc., v. Yellow Cab & Baggage Co., 130 Neb. 401, 265 N. W. 234. This court in discussing the regulatory powers and duties of the commission in respect to services of common carriers unanimously adopted the following views of the law:

“ ‘The prime object and real purpose of commission control is to secure adequate sustained service for the public at the least possible cost, and to protect and conserve investments already made for this purpose. Experience has demonstrated beyond any question that competition among natural monopolies is wasteful economically and results finally in insufficient and unsatisfactory service and extravagant rates. Neither the number of the individuals demanding other service nor the question of fares constitutes the entire question, but rather what the proper agency should be to furnish the best service to the public generally and continuously at the least cost. Anything which tends to cripple seriously or destroy an established system of transportation that is necessary to a community [770] is not a convenience and necessity for the public and its introduction would be a handicap rather than a help ultimately in such a field.’ 3 Pond, Public Utilities (4th ed.) sec. 775.” Publix Cars, Inc., v. Yellow Cab & Baggage Co., 130 Neb. 401, 265 N. W. 234.

In the same case the court ruled that consideration should be given to the public rather than to individuals.

A ruling based on the abandonment of an unprofitable branch line of railroad, while its entire mileage is operated at a profit, is not necessary to a decision on this appeal and decisions of administrative boards and opinions of courts on such a problem are not controlling herein. The question is narrowed to the finding of the commission that applicant is not, under existing conditions as disclosed by the evidence, entitled to a regulatory order permitting it to discontinue motor passenger trains 97 and 98 on its branch line of railroad between Beatrice and Holdrege. Transportation of passengers by steam-engine trains on this line was profitable before the advent of automobiles, private trucks, common carrier trucks and public highways adapted to the use of the new motor vehicles. Much of the evidence on both sides was directed to changed conditions resulting from the new methods of transportation. Such changes were inevitable and railroad transportation must be adjusted to existing conditions if it is to survive. Long survival without earning capacity or profit is impossible.

The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, applicant, operates 151 miles of railroad between Beatrice and Holdrege. Its entire mileage in Nebraska is practically 3,900 miles and it has a vast mileage of connecting lines in other states. The grounds on which applicant relies for the relief sought by it may be summarized generally as follows: The primary purpose of the motor trains was transportation of passengers. Incidental thereto the service included the carrying of mails, express, baggage, cream and other commodities transportable in a one-unit motor train. The use of private automobiles and public motor passenger buses or coaches on improved highways, [771] paralleling or crossing applicant’s branch line, reduced the passenger service thereon almost to the vanishing point. Trains 97 and 98 are no longer needed for passenger traffic and are operated at a loss which places an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on the main railroad lines of applicant and on interstate commerce. If these trains are abandoned, all adequate transportation facilities and public services for passengers, baggage, mails, express and freight in all the towns and territory along this line will be furnished by other trains thereon, by other railroad lines of applicant, by lines of other railroad companies operating in the same territory and by common carrier trucks and motor coaches. In brief, the foregoing propositions indicate generally the position taken by applicant.

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

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 295 N.W. 389, 138 Neb. 767, 1940 Neb. LEXIS 202 (Neb. 1940).

295 N.W. 389 (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Nebraska State Railway Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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)
Shupe Ex Rel. Shupe v. County of Antelope
59 N.W.2d 710 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1953)
Moritz v. Transcontinental Bus Lines, Inc.
43 N.W.2d 603 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1950)
State ex rel. State Railway Commission v. Ramsey
37 N.W.2d 502 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1949)
Moritz v. Nebraska State Railway Commission
23 N.W.2d 545 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1946)
Hergott v. Nebraska State Railway Commission
15 N.W.2d 418 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1944)
Thomson v. Nebraska State Railway Commission
8 N.W.2d 552 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1943)
In Re Theel Brpthers Rapid Transit Co.
6 N.W.2d 560 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1942)