Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission

240 U.S. 324, 36 S. Ct. 260, 60 L. Ed. 669, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1454

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: February 21, 1916
• Docket: 170
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

After hearing the interésted parties, the Railroad Commission of Georgia concluded that making and maintaining physical connection at Lawrenceville, Georgia (a manufacturing town with two thousand inhabitants), between Lawrenceville Branch Railroad and Seaboard Air Line Railway would be practicable and to the public interest; and accordingly passed an order that within four months the roads should provide and maintain one, together with sufficient interchange tracks to care for traffic moving between -them. No definite point for the connection was prescribed; opinion was expressed that expenses should be borne equally by the two companies; and they were directed to report their action within thirty days.

Appellant brought this proceeding in the United States' District Court, Northern District of Georgia, alleging the order was null and void and asking that its enforcement be enjoined; That court heard additional evidence and upon the whole record concluded the challenged order was not Unreasonable and the commission was fully justified in making it. 206 Fed. Rep. 181. Injunction was accordingly denied and suit dismissed, and this action was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 213 Fed. Rep. 27.

Section 2664, Georgia Code, 1910, gives the railroad commission "power and authority, when in its judgment practicable and’ to uhe interest of the public, to order and compel the making and operation of physical connection between lines of railroad crossing or - intersecting each other, on entering the same incorporated town or city in this State.” Wadley Southern Ry. v. Georgia, 235 U. S. 651.

It is within the power of a State, acting through án administrative body, to require railroad companies to make track connections where the established facts show public necessity therefor, just regard being given to advantages which will probably result on one side and necessary expenses to- be incurred on the other. The facts being established, the-question then presented is whether as matter.of law there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of public necessity — the mere declaration of a commission is not conclusive. Wisconsin &c. R. R. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 295, 296; Oregon R. R. & Nav. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510; Great Northern Ry. v. Minnesota, 238 U. S. 340, 345.

The state commission and both courts were of opinion that the facts sufficed to show public necessity for the connection in question and that it could be constructed and maintained without unreasonable expenditure. The only substantial question before us is whether such find ing is plainly erroneous because the evidence is insufficient to-support it; and, having examined the record, we are unable to say the facts disclosed do not give the essential support. The judgment of the court below is accordingly.

Affirmed.