Village of Atwood v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad

147 N.E. 449, 316 Ill. 425
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 24, 1925
DocketNo. 15984. Judgment affirmed.
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 147 N.E. 449 (Village of Atwood v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad) 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
Village of Atwood v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad, 147 N.E. 449, 316 Ill. 425 (Ill. 1925).

Opinions

Mr. Justice DeYoung

delivered the opinion of the court:

The president and board of trustees of the village of Atwood on February 13, 1922, passed an ordinance requiring the Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Western Railroad Company, within sixty days after notice of the passage and publication of the ordinance, to station and maintain a flag-: man at the intersection of County Line street with the railroad from eight o’clock in the morning until six o’clock in the afternoon of each day. The ordinance declared that such a flagman was necessary for the safety of the general public, and subjected the railroad company, for its refusal or neglect to comply, to a fine of not less than $10 for each day’s default. The railroad company refused to provide the flagman, and the village brought suit in the circuit court of Piatt county to recover the penalties prescribed. The defendant interposed a demurrer to the declaration, assigning as causes therefor that the village authorities had no power or authority to pass the ordinance, and that the power to provide for the safety of the public at the intersections of streets with steam railroads is vested solely in the Commerce Commission. The court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. The village prosecutes this appeal since the validity of a municipal ordinance is involved, and the trial judge has certified that in his opinion the public interest requires that the appeal be taken directly to this court.

The sole question presented for determination is whether the president and board of trustees of the village of Atwood had the power to pass the ordinance. Sub-section 27 of section 1 of article 5 of “An act to provide for the incorporation of cities and villages,” approved April 10, 1872, in force July 1, 1872, (Cahill’s Stat. 1921, p. 447,) expressly confers upon cities and villages organized under the act the power “to require railroad companies to keep flagmen at railroad crossings of streets, and provide protection against injury to persons and property in the use of such railroads.” This provision became a part of the act at the time of its passage and since has remained unchanged. Appellee does not deny this grant of power, but insists that it was the purpose of the General Assembly by the passage of “An act to provide for the regulation of public utilities,” approved June 30, 1913, in force January 1, 1914, (Laws of 1913, p. 459,) to vest in the Public Utilities Commission, and by its successor, “An act concerning public utilities,” approved June 29, 1921, in force July 1, 1921, (Laws of 1921, p. 702,) to vest in the Illinois Commerce Commission complete and exclusive power to regulate and control all public utilities in the State, and that such purpose is manifested by the terms and provisions of the two acts. A consideration of the scope and pertinent provisions of the later act is therefore necessary.

The act, among other things, creates the Commerce Commission and vests it with general supervision of all public utilities, including power to establish their systems of accounting, to supervise, regulate, restrict and control the issuance of their stocks and bonds, to regulate their rates and services, and to hold investigations, inquiries and hearings concerning any matters within the. provisions of the act or any other act relating to public utilities, make findings and enter its orders thereon. More specifically, section 9 (Laws of 1921, p. 708,) requires every public utility to comply with every order or regulation made by the commission. Section 32 (Laws of' 1921, p. 719,) requires every such utility to furnish and maintain such instrumentalities, equipment and facilities as shall promote the safety, health, comfort and convenience of its patrons, employees and the public and as shall be in all respects adequate and efficient. The 49th section (Laws of 1921, p. 728,) provides that whenever the commission, after a hearing upon its own motion or upon complaint, shall find that the equipment, appliances, facilities or practices of any public utility are unsafe, improper or inadequate, the commission shall determine, and by its order, rule or regulation fix, the safe, proper or adequate equipment, appliances, facilities or methods to be observed, furnished, constructed, enforced or employed. By section 50 (Laws of 1921, p. 728,) whenever the commission, after a hearing upon its own motion or upon complaint, shall find that additions, extensions, repairs or improvements to or changes in the existing plant, equipment, apparatus, facilities or other physical property of any public utility ought reasonably to be made to promote the security or convenience of its employees or the public, the commission shall make and serve an order directing that such additions, extensions, repairs, improvements or changes be made. Section 57 (Laws of 1921, p. 733,) provides: “The commission shall have power, after a hearing and upon its own motion, or upon complaint, by general or special orders, rules or regulations, or otherwise, to require every public utility to maintain and operate its plant, equipment or other property in such manner as to promote and safeguard the health and safety of its employees, passengers, customers, and the public, and to this end to prescribe, among other things, the installation, use, maintenance and operation of appropriate safety or other devices or appliances including interlocking and other protective devices at grade crossings or junctions and block or other systems of signaling, to establish uniform or other standards of equipment, and to require the performance of any other act which the health or safety of its employees, passengers, customers or the public may demand.” By section 58 (Laws of 1921, p. 734,) the commission is given power, after a hearing, when in its opinion the public safety requires it, to alter or abolish any existing or future grade crossing or to require a separation of grades at such crossings, and to prescribe, after a hearing of the parties, the terms upon which such separation shall be made and the proportion in which the expense of the alteration or abolition of such crossings or the separation of such grades shall be divided between the railroad or street railroad companies affected, or between such companies and the State, county, municipality or other public authority in interest. Section 64 (Laws of 1921, p. 738,) authorizes the making of complaints by the commission upon its own motion, or by any person or corporation, chamber of commerce, board of trade, or any industrial, commercial, mercantile, agricultural or manufacturing society, or any body politic or municipal corporation. Section 65 (Laws of 1921, p. 740,) provides for the issuance of process to enforce the attendance of necessary witnesses, for hearings, the taking of evidence, the entry of orders and for appeals.. Section 76 (Laws of 1921, p. 747,) subjects any public utility which violates or fails to comply with any provision of the act, or any order, decision, rule, regulation, direction or requirement of the commission, to a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $2000 for each and every offense. Sections 81 to 86 inclusive, (Laws of 1921, pp. 748-753,) which constitute article 6 of the act, concern local utilities, and permit a city which adopts the article, to regulate and control such public utilities, “except railroads constituting or used as a part of a trunk line railroad system,” in the manner there prescribed.

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

Related

Village of Dolton Ex Rel. Winter v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
554 N.E.2d 440 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1990)
City of North Vernon v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
500 N.E.2d 1238 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1986)
Churchill v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
383 N.E.2d 929 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1978)
American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad
219 N.E.2d 529 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1966)
Amer. Nat. Bk. v. Penn. Rr Co.
219 N.E.2d 529 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1966)
American National Bank &Trust Co v. Pennsylvania Railroad
202 N.E.2d 79 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1964)
Village of Bensenville v. Illinois Commerce Commission
195 N.E.2d 169 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1963)
City of Champaign v. City of Champaign Township
156 N.E.2d 543 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1959)
Hemphill v. Wabash R. Co
209 F.2d 768 (Seventh Circuit, 1954)
Chicago Park District v. Harris
83 N.E.2d 702 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1949)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Franklin County
56 N.E.2d 775 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1944)
Klemme v. Drainage District No. 5 of the Township of Crete
43 N.E.2d 966 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1942)
Wolf v. Village of Mt. Prospect
40 N.E.2d 778 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1942)
Fieldcrest Dairies, Inc. v. City of Chicago
122 F.2d 132 (Seventh Circuit, 1941)
Munch v. Tusa
300 N.W. 385 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1941)
City of Geneseo v. Illinois Northern Utilities Co.
1 N.E.2d 392 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1936)
Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. City of Centralia, Ill.
11 F. Supp. 874 (E.D. Illinois, 1935)
Corbett v. Terminal Railroad Assn.
82 S.W.2d 97 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 N.E. 449, 316 Ill. 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-atwood-v-cincinnati-indianapolis-western-railroad-ill-1925.