Union Pacific Railroad v. Nebraska State Railway Commission

31 N.W.2d 552, 149 Neb. 575, 1948 Neb. LEXIS 56
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedApril 1, 1948
DocketNo. 32270
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 31 N.W.2d 552 (Union Pacific Railroad v. Nebraska State Railway Commission) 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
Union Pacific Railroad v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 31 N.W.2d 552, 149 Neb. 575, 1948 Neb. LEXIS 56 (Neb. 1948).

Opinion

Chappell, J.

Appellant, hereinafter called the company, filed an application with the Nebraska State Railway Commission for authority to discontinue its agency service at Keystone for the reason that its agent at Martin could render the same essential services, and public convenience and necessity no longer required agency service at Keystone because of the kind and amount of business transacted at that station. Objections were filed, and, after hearing, the company’s application was denied. Motion for rehearing was overruled and the company appealed, assigning as error substantially that the order of denial was arbitrary and unreasonable. We sustain that contention.

Applicable law is well established in this jurisdiction. [577]*577This court has held that: “The prime object and real purpose of Nebraska state railway commission control is to secure adequate, sustained service for the public at minimum cost and to protect and conserve investments already made for this purpose. In doing this, primary consideration must be given to the public rather than to individuals.” Thomson v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 143 Neb. 52, 8 N. W. 2d 552.

That case is also authority for the proposition that a final order of the railway commission granting or denying a railroad company permission to discontinue an agency at a particular station is unreasonable and arbitrary unless its findings and conclusions conform to the law and are supported by the evidence.

The opinion further affirmed that the service and facilities to be furnished by a railroad company at any station need only be just, reasonable, and adequate to the requirements of the station, and should in a measure be commensurate with the patronage and receipts from that portion of the public to whom such service is rendered, and whether or not a railroad company may discontinue its agency service at any of its stations depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

In Thomson v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 141 Neb. 697, 4 N. W. 2d 756, it was held: “ ‘It is not reasonable to require the maintenance of a full-time agency station when the cost of such service is out of proportion to the revenue derived from that portion of the * * * public benefited thereby, especially where a substitute service may be provided which will afford the same essential service but is less convenient.’ ”

In Thomson v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 142 Neb. 477, 6 N. W. 2d 607, it was held: “The matter of time necessary to. be devoted to the performance of duties by an agent of a railroad is a matter of importance in determining whether or not the railway commission acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in denying an appli[578]*578cation for the discontinuance of an agency. * * *

“The ruling of the railway commission or of this court on the question of discontinuance of an agency at any given time does not. amount to an adjudication for the future. It is only a judgment on the condition presented by the application and relates only to the time and conditions presented.”

In Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, 35 S. Ct. 429, 59 L. Ed. 735, it was said: “But, broad as. is the power of regulation, the State does not enjoy the freedom of an owner.”

In that connection it was said in Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 85 Neb. 818, 124 N. W. 477: “But, unless public necessity requires, the discretion of. the .railroad .company in establishing and maintaining its stations should not be. interfered with.”

Therefore, in arriving at decision in the light of the foregoing authorities, this court will, with due regard for the welfare of the public, take into consideration all the facts and circumstances peculiar to the Keystone station and attendant thereon, such as its proximity to and the accessibility of other open stations; the character and volume of services rendered to and the business transacted with the public; the revenue derived therefrom, together with the cost and expense incidental thereto; the time necessarily devoted by the company’s agent in the- performance of his duties; and whether or not an open agency is necessary as a safety precaution in the operation of trains between stations.

Bearing that in mind, we have examined the record. It discloses that according to the 1940 census Keystone had a population of 39 persons. It is located on Highway 49, which runs south from Arthur to Keystone 27 miles', and thence west 5 miles to main Highway 61, which crosses the state from north to south and extends from Arthur south through Martin to Ogallala. It is seven miles by graveled and cindered road from Key[579]*579stone to Martin. ' The depots of both are located on the company’s North Platte branch line, which has its junction with the main line a short distance west of North Platte, and generally follows the North Platte River to Gering. The depot at Keystone, however, is not now located in the village itself.

Insofar as important here, the company now maintains open agency stations at Sarben, Keystone, Martin, and Lewellen, over a distance of 46.5 miles.- It is 15.6 miles by rail from Keystone east to Sarben, and 6.5 miles by rail from Keystone west to Martin, or a total of 22.1 miles from Sarben to Martin. From Martin it is 24.4 miles by rail west to Lewellen. It will be ■ observed, then, that if the agency at Keystone is discontinued, there will still be open agency stations at Sarben, Martin, and Lewellen, with Martin located approximately midway between the other two.

There is evidence that such a situation would be more satisfactory from a train-operations standpoint than having two of the stations located within close proximity, as at present. In the light of the proximity to and accessibility of Martin from Keystone by highway or rail, and the distance between Sarben and Martin, or Martin and Lewellen by rail, those factors could have but little significance in sustaining the order of the commission.

Prior to construction of the Kingsley Dam the company’s line went directly through Keystone. However, when the dam was constructed a short distance to the west thereof, it was necessary for the company to leave the river valley to the east of Keystone and reconstruct its line in the hills north of the lake created by the dam. Thus the railroad no longer went through Keystone and the station itself was of necessity moved from its former location to a point 2.2 miles northeast of the village. There are no buildings now on the line at Keystone except the depot, which is identical with the one at Martin. Agents at both stations live in the depots.

The village of Keystone has two general merchan[580]*580dise stores, one of which handles coal, gas, and oil; a bank; a telephone office; two churches; a public library; and an eighth-grade school. Its high school has been discontinued, and its high school students are now transported to Ogallala. The post office is in one of the stores, from which a mail route extends out into Arthur county. The agent at Keystone does not now handle the mail, thus discontinuance will in no substantial manner change -that situation. Keystone and Martin are both on the same telephone exchange, with telephones in both depots. The one can be called as conveniently as the other.

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

Related

In re App. No. P-12.32 of Black Hills Neb. Gas
311 Neb. 813 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2022)
First National Bank v. Southroads Bank
205 N.W.2d 346 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1973)
Application of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
126 N.W.2d 679 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1964)
Application of Omaha Transit Company
94 N.W.2d 461 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1959)
Alabama Public Service Commission v. Western Railway
89 So. 2d 64 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD CO. v. Keifer
69 N.W.2d 541 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1955)
Moritz v. Transcontinental Bus Lines, Inc.
43 N.W.2d 603 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 N.W.2d 552, 149 Neb. 575, 1948 Neb. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-pacific-railroad-v-nebraska-state-railway-commission-neb-1948.