State ex rel. Moore v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha R. R.

19 Neb. 476
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 19 Neb. 476 (State ex rel. Moore v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha R. R.) 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
State ex rel. Moore v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha R. R., 19 Neb. 476 (Neb. 1886).

Opinion

Maxwell, Ch. J.

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the •defendant to stop its trains, and to build a suitable depot, ■side tracks, switches, and cattle yards on its line of railroad ;at North Side, as shall reasonably accommodate the public, .and conform to the requirements of the law,” etc. The relators allege in their petition, in substance, that said railroad was completed in May, 1882, that at that time said ■corporation established as tation on the west half of section •8 in township 25, range 2 east, for the purpose of receiving and discharging freight and passengers; that in 1884 said defendant erected at said station cattle yards and a chute for loading and unloading live stock, and also erected “ a large section house and put up posts one mile from said station on the line of said railroad,” with boards attached thereto, on which was printed in large letters the words one’mile to station;” “ that ever since the completion of said road until quite recently respondent has stopped all its trains, both freight and passenger, at said station, at regular times, for the purpose of receiving and discharging freight .and passengers and placed the name thereof on its time tables and maps with regular times for the arrival and departure of its trains;” “that the nearest station is Hoskins •on the west, seven miles, and Wayne on the east, fourteen miles;” “ that the country in the vicinity of said station is ■open prairie, very fertile and adapted to agriculture, and at the time of the completion of said railway was very sparsely settled; ” that since the completion of said railway, and because of the establishment of said station, the relator Moore “ purchased eight hundred acres coming within one-fourth mile of said station, and has put it all under cultivation;” hat the relator Dodge purchased three hundred and twenty acres within one and a half miles thereof, and has [478]*478Pput it under cultivation and made it his permanent home; that relator” Starr purchased one hundred and sixty acres within one mile .thereof, and put it under cultivation and it is his permanent home, and about thirty other persons have also since the establishment of said station purchased and improved lands, and made permanent homes; that re-lators and said other citizens were induced to and did purchase and improve said lands and make their homes there? by the fact of the construction and operation of said railroad and the location of said station of North Side, and their belief that said station would be permanently maintained there; that at the time said station was located there were not to exceed tweiity families located within a radius of seven miles thereof; that since the location of said station there have been established there, and are now in successful operation, a general store, a blacksmith shop, and lumber and coal yard, and a post-office, and a town has been laid off into lots, streets, and alleys, and the plat thereof duly recorded by the owners of the land; that from March, 1883, to about the first day of July, 1885; when said station was removed as hereinafter stated, there was shipped and unloaded at said station over respondent’s railroad, in car load lots, about one hundred car loads of freight; during said time there was received and loaded at and shipped from said station about twenty-five car loads of freight, in car load lots, besides a large amount in quantities less than car load lots; but relators have no means of knowing or even approximating the amount; and large numbers of passengers arrived at and departed from said station over said road; but relators have no knowledge of the number of passengers thus carried over said road; that since the first of February, 1885, there has been shipped over said road for said town of North Side twenty-two car loads of lumber and other building material, and two car loads of coal; that during the time said station was maintained the business of said road to and from said sta[479]*479tion was rapidly increasing, and if a station is continue^ there it will increase still more rapidly; that last spring the patrons of said station requested the respondent to erect a depot building at said station for the better accommodation of the shippers and passengers over said road; that respondent demanded as a condition of erecting a depot building or maintaining a station at North Side that a one-half interest in three hundred and twenty acres of land adjoining said station should be conveyed to them, and threatened that if their demands were not complied with that the station would be entirely removed, and trains would cease stopping there; that the owners of said land offered respondent a one-half interest in one hundred and sixty acres of said land as an inducement to erect a depot building and continue the station at 'North Side, but respondent refused to erect said depot building, or to continue longer to maintain a station or stop its trains at North Side, unless its demands for a one-half interest in said land was complied with, and because of the refusal of the owners of said land, who are non-residents, to comply with said demands, respondent removed said depot, side tracks, and stock yards as hereinafter stated; that about the first of July, 1885, respondent not regarding its duties as a common carrier, nor the rights of the relators and the public, and to avoid its duties as a common carrier, and for the reason that the owners of said land refused to donate land to them on which to lay out a town, respondent removed the side track, stock yards, and section house from North Side, and has ever since refused to receive or discharge freight at North Side, except in quantities less than car load lots, and is threatening to and soon will, if not prevented by order of this court, cease stopping any of its trains at said place; that since the removal of the depot from North Side respondent has put in a side track and stock yards and established a depot at a point on said railroad three and one-half miles east of North Side, and re-[480]*480rmoved the section house from North Side to said point, and stops its trains and delivers and receives freight there in any quantities desired. There is no settlement or improved land nearer than five miles to the north or south of said new station, and the nearest house on the east is at least three miles distant, and only two houses between it and North Side on the west. There are only ten persons who will be as well accommodated with a depot at the new place as at North Side, and five of them are as convenient to North Side as to the new station. There is no business of any kind established at the new station, but respondent is making strong efforts to induce the parties who are doing business at North Side to move to said new place, by offering to move their goods and buildings free of charge, and to indemnify them against loss by the removal. Respondent is also endeavoring to procure the removal of the post-office from North Side to said new station.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Krieger v. Board of Supervisors
105 N.W.2d 721 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1960)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Commonwealth
226 S.W. 113 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
Flanigan v. Burritt
173 P. 352 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1918)
State ex rel. Kelley v. Ferguson
144 N.W. 1039 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1914)
State ex rel. Leidigh v. Johnson
139 N.W. 669 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1913)
State ex rel. City of Crawford v. Bisping
130 N.W. 1034 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1911)
City of Crawford v. Darrow
127 N.W. 891 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1910)
State ex rel. Luben v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
120 N.W. 163 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1909)
Rihner v. Jacobs
113 N.W. 220 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1907)
Nebraska Telephone Co. v. State ex rel. Yeiser
76 N.W. 171 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
State ex rel. McMullen v. Affholder
62 N.W. 871 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
State ex rel. Lancaster County v. C., B. & Q. R.
45 N.W. 469 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Neb. 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-moore-v-chicago-st-paul-minneapolis-omaha-r-r-neb-1886.