Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois Commerce Commission

104 N.E.2d 796, 411 Ill. 526, 1952 Ill. LEXIS 270
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 20, 1952
DocketNo. 32090
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 104 N.E.2d 796 (Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois Commerce Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 104 N.E.2d 796, 411 Ill. 526, 1952 Ill. LEXIS 270 (Ill. 1952).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Hershey

delivered the opinion of the court:

On June 19, 1947, six of the railway employee brotherhoods filed a petition with the Illinois Commerce Commission praying for an order requiring the Illinois Central Railroad Company to provide and maintain adequate transportation daily, for its employees engaged in the operation of trains, between its crew-board office located near its depot in the city of Champaign, and its outlying terminal facilities northeast of said city. After a series of hearings and rehearings the Commerce Commission, on February 28, 1950, entered an order directing the railroad company to provide 24-hour transportation service for its employees by means of a motor coach, upon a 30-minute round-trip schedule between the points requested, at a one-way fare of twenty cents for each passenger. A motion for rehearing was denied and the railroad company appealed to the circuit court of Champaign County, where the order of the Commerce Commission was reversed and set aside. Pursuant to section 69 of the Public Utilities Act, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1949, chap. 111⅔, par. 73,) the Commerce Commission has perfected an appeal to this court.

Section 65 of the Public Utilities Act requires the Commerce Commission to make and render findings concerning the subject matter and facts inquired into and enter its order based thereon. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1949, chap. 111⅔, par. 69.) Such findings of fact must be sufficiently specific to enable the courts to intelligently review the orders of the Commerce Commission, and to ascertain if the facts upon which such orders are based constitute a fair and reasonable basis for the decision of the commission. (Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Co. v. Commerce Com. 346 Ill. 412.) We have held in a number of cases that the purpose of a judicial review of an order of the commission is to keep it within the jurisdictional bounds prescribed by law, so as to guard against the violation of any rights guaranteed by the constitution. (Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Commerce Com, 387 Ill. 256; South Chicago Coal and Dock Co. v. Commerce Com. 365 Ill. 218.) The courts may re-examine the facts and set aside an order of the commission, if the evidence in the record shows the order to be without substantial foundation. Chicago Railway Co. v. Commerce Com. ex rel. Chicago Motor Coach Co. 336 Ill. 51; Commerce Com. ex rel. City of Bloomington v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Co. 309 Ill. 165.

We proceed, therefore, to a consideration of the order of the Commerce Commission, and the findings of fact upon which it is based. The order recites, after certain formal and jurisdictional statements, that the petition was filed pursuant to the 1945 amendment to section 32 of the Public Utilities Act, which authorizes the commission to require railroad companies to provide the necessary transportation for employees engaged in the operation of trains, in getting to and from outlying terminals, when the commission finds' such transportation necessary. After a general recital of evidentiary facts, specific findings were made which may be summarized as follows : The Illinois Central Railroad Company is the owner of a railroad line which extends in a general north-and-south direction through the city of Champaign; the railroad company operates and maintains certain outlying terminal facilities, including a freight yard, yard office and roundhouse, approximately two and one-third to three miles northeast of its crew-board office, which is near the passenger depot in downtown Champaign; approximately 275 train crewmen either report for work, or are relieved from duty, at the yard office or roundhouse during an average 24-hour day; the railroad company uses a caller system to notify its train and engine crews of the time trains, on which they are employed, are scheduled to depart from the freight yards; the only public transportation between the crew-board office in the business district of the city and the yard office and roundhouse, located just outside the city limits, is provided by three privately owned taxicabs, which number is at times reduced to one, and on occasions no public transportation of any kind is available; the public transportation is inadequate and detrimental to the safety, health, comfort and convenience of the railroad employees required to report for and be relieved from their duties at the yard office and roundhouse; the roundhouse, yard office and crew-board office constitute a part of an outlying terminal of the railroad; the transportation of its employees by the railroad company to and from the crew-board office and the yard office and roundhouse is necessary and required in the public interest, and necessary for the- transportation of all operating employees to and from the outlying terminals during all working hours to conduct the railroad operations for the convenience of the general public. The concluding finding was that the railroad company should provide 24-hour transportation service for all employees by means of a motor coach operating on a 30-minute round-trip schedule between the crew-board office and the yard office and roundhouse, at a fare of twenty cents per ride.

The order of the Commerce Commission, based on these findings, was reversed and set aside by the circuit court on the grounds that it was unreasonable and unlawful for the following reasons: (1) The findings made were insufficient, were not supported by substantial evidence, so that an order based on such findings was arbitrary and unreasonable; (2) the 1945 amendment to section 32 of the Public Utilities Act is unconstitutional in that it violates the equal-protection and' due-process clauses of our State and Federal constitutions; and (3) the order is void as repugnant to the due-process clauses of both our State and Federal constitutions. The Commerce Commission assigns error on each of the grounds recited in the order of the circuit court and, in addition, asserts that the court erred in not giving proper weight to the findings, and in substituting its own judgment for that of the commission.

This court recently had occasion to consider an order issued by the Commerce Commission pursuant to the 1945 amendment to section 32 of the Public Utilities Act. In the case of Wabash Railroad Co. v. Order of Railway Conductors, 402 Ill. 548, we announced that two elements must be established before the commission is authorized to order transportation under this amendment to the act, viz., (1) There must be an outlying terminal; and (2) the commission must find that the transportation is necessary, and the necessity must be based upon substantial evidence. We described a railroad terminal generally as a place for the receipt of passengers and freight, and for the making up and classification of trains, the repairing and outfittting of engines or other conveyances, a combination, generally, of a workshop where the trains are prepared for transportation, and where the men start their work, where the office of the superintendent of the division is located, and the place from which orders for the going or coming of trains are to be dispatched and received. In the instant case the commission made a specific finding of fact that the roundhouse, yard office and crew-board office constituted a part of an outlying terminal of the railroad. The evidence discloses that trains are made up and classified, engines are repaired, outfitted and prepared for transportation, and operating employees engaged in freight service start their work at the yards and enginehouse outside the north boundary limits of the city.

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

Related

Anundson v. City of Chicago
256 N.E.2d 1 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1970)
Bismarck Hotel Co. v. Petriko
173 N.E.2d 509 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1961)
Osborn v. Village of River Forest
171 N.E.2d 579 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1961)
Brinker Trucking Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
166 N.E.2d 18 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1960)
Florida Real Estate Comm. v. Yuran
14 Fla. Supp. 138 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1959)
City of Aurora Ex Rel. Egan v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n
137 N.E.2d 347 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1956)
Eagle Bus Lines, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
119 N.E.2d 915 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1954)
Curtis v. State Police Merit Board
111 N.E.2d 159 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1953)
Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. IlliNois Commerce Commission
111 N.E.2d 329 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1953)
Icrr Co. v. Ill. Commerce Com'n
104 N.E.2d 796 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 N.E.2d 796, 411 Ill. 526, 1952 Ill. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illinois-central-railroad-v-illinois-commerce-commission-ill-1952.