Home/Idaho Supreme Court/In Re the Union Pacific Railroad

In Re the Union Pacific Railroad

134 P.2d 599, 64 Idaho 529, 1943 Ida. LEXIS 23
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 22, 1943
DocketNo. 7076.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 134 P.2d 599 (In Re the Union Pacific Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re the Union Pacific Railroad, 134 P.2d 599, 64 Idaho 529, 1943 Ida. LEXIS 23 (Idaho 1943).

Opinion

AILSHIE, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Public Utilities Commission, which order denied the appellant’s (Union Pacific Railroad Company) petition to discontinue their regular station agency at Montour, Idaho. The application was originally made and filed December 18, 1940. Hearing was subsequently had and the matter was continued and held in abeyance until such time as additional information could be furnished by the company, showing receipts and disbursements for 1940 and 1941. For convenience, we will hereinafter refer to appellant, Union Pacific Railroad Company, as the Company.

The company operates and controls what is commonly known as the Idaho Northern Branch, extending from the company’s main line at Nampa to McCall. This branch line runs through the intermediate points of Emmett, Mon-tour, Horseshoe Bend, Banks, and other points. The company has heretofore continuously maintained a regular agency at Montour with a resident agent who was a telegraph operator and who discharged all the regular and usual duties of a station agent.

It is contended by the company, that its business at Montour has declined and that the community of Montour can be adequately, efficiently, and reasonably served by a caretaker, whom the company proposes to substitute for an agent and furnish all the substantial service that is given by a regular agency. The company says that “a caretaker would be employed to look after and take care of the freight, keep the waiting room warm, care for the cream and express, or any other shipments received at the station for shipment or delivery, and would perform the same service as that performed by the agent except that he would not be required to keep accounts or perform telegraph duties.”

It further proposes:

“As to carload shipments, (and for use in transacting *532 any other business or obtaining information) appellant agreed to maintain a telephone at Montour so that cars can be ordered through appellant’s agent at Emmett or Horseshoe Bend and to notify the agent when the cars are ready to move. The shipper would make out the bill of lading for the car (which is the shipper’s duty) and leave it with the caretaker or place it in a box provided for that purpose from which it will be picked up by the train conductor and the car moved.”

Substitution of similar nonagency service is proposed here for Montour station that was offered by the company in O. S. L. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 47 Ida. 482, 276 P. 970, wherein the change from an agent to a care-take was approved and allowed by this court.

It appears that Montour and the immediate surrounding community, has about 800 voters; the village has one general store, one garage, a telephone office, one service station, a blacksmith shop, and a school. The adjacent communities of Sweet and Ola have generally been served from Montour and are included within the estimated voting population of the Montour section. The industry of the surrounding country is farming and grazing. The L. C. L. business done at this station, for the first eleven months of the year (1940) in which this application was made, and for the corresponding period in the preceding year (1939), was as follows:

*533

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

Related

Butler v. Carter
123 So. 2d 313 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1960)
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Fowler
290 S.W.2d 922 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. State Corp. Commission
61 S.E.2d 5 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1950)
Village and Citizens of Grenville v. State Corp. Com'n
206 P.2d 259 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1949)
In Re the Union Pacific Railroad
142 P.2d 575 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 P.2d 599, 64 Idaho 529, 1943 Ida. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-union-pacific-railroad-idaho-1943.