State v. Public Service Commission
Decision Date | 04 March 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 20961.,20961. |
Citation | 210 S.W. 386,277 Mo. 175 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE ex rel. MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI et al. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cole County; J. G. Slate, Judge.
On complaint by the city of Pilot Grove, in Cooper county, Mo., the Public Service Commission granted an order requiring the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company and Charles E. Schaff, its receiver, to stop certain trains at said city, and to renew said order the state, on the relation of the railway company and its receiver, brought certiorari against the commission. From judgment confirming the order, the railway company and its receiver appeal. Affirmed.
J. W. Jamison, of St. Louis, for appellants.
Alex. Z. Patterson, Gen. Counsel, and Jas. D. Lindsay, Asst. Gen. Counsel, both of Jefferson City, for respondent Public Service Commission.
This appeal seeks the review of a judgment of the circuit court of Cole County affirming an order of the Public Service Commission.
The complaint filed with the commission, upon which its order was based, is as follows:
A hearing upon this complaint was held before a member of the commission at Pilot Grove. The evidence showed that the appellant railroad company had, for a considerable length of time, regularly stopped trains Nos. 9 and 10 at Pilot Grove for the reception and discharge of passengers to and from all points. This practice was continued until August, 1917, when appellant put into effect a rule providing that train No. 9 should stop at Pilot Grove only for the discharge of passengers from St. Louis and the reception of passengers for Sedalia and beyond, and that train No. 10 should stop only for the discharge of passengers from Parsons, Kan., and the reception of passengers for Columbia and beyond. In pursuance of this course; these trains were compelled to make frequent stops at Pilot Grove; yet the appellant refused to carry passengers between Boonville and Pilot Grove on those trains, although stops were regularly made at Boonville and frequently at Pilot Grove. The principal passenger business at Pilot Grove was to Boonville and Sedalia; that during the months of August and September immediately preceding the hearing on the complaint train No. 9 in thirteen days stopped nine times at Pilot Grove, and train No. 10 in sixteen days stopped there eleven times; that at the time of this hearing appellant operated three trains daily between St. Louis, Mo., and Sedalia, Mo., with final destination beyond the state. The time schedules of a number of appellant's other trains were shown to demonstrate the fact that the amount of time they consumed in running from Sedalia to Pilot Grove and from the latter place to St. Louis was not appreciably different from that consumed by the two trains sought to be affected by the complaint in running between the same points. The testimony of a number of witnesses was introduced to show the inconvenience to the public at Pilot Grove on account of the manner in which the appellant ran the two trains in question.
The finding of the commission based on this testimony was that the principal passenger business at the station of Pilot Grove was to Boonville and Sedalia; that trains No. 9 and No. 10 stopped at Pilot Grove for passengers from and to St. Louis and beyond, and from and to Parsons, Kan., and beyond, and that said trains seldom passed Pilot Grove without stopping; and that the stops for the discharge and reception of Boonville and Sedalia passengers at Pilot Grove could be made without material delay or expense to the appellant.
The commission thus defines its reasons for the ruling in this regard:
An order was thereupon entered by the commission requiring the appellant to regularly stop trains No. 9 and No. 10 at Pilot Grove thereafter.
A rehearing of the case was granted by the commission, and additional testimony was offered by appellant, in which it was disclosed that appellant had prepared and put in operation a new schedule, prohibiting trains Nos. 9 and 10 to stop at Pilot Grove for passengers from or to any point. A cancellation, therefore, of the commission's order was sought by the appellant on the ground that the new schedule remedied the inadequate local service theretofore existing between Pilot Grove and Boonville, since daylight service was furnished such points on trains other than Nos. 9 and 10. The commission found, however, from the evidence adduced, that the failure to stop trains Nos. 9 and 10 at Pilot Grove rendered the service less adequate to and from St. Louis and from points south of Parsons, Kan. Whereupon the order theretofore made by the commission in regard to said trains was affirmed, and a supplemental order entered as follows:
It is with the foregoing order that we are concerned in determining the propriety of the commission's action.
derives whatever authority it possesses from the law of its creation there can be no...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Service Commission of Missouri v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
... ... Breuer , General Counsel, and James D ... Lindsay , Assistant Counsel, for appellant ... (1) The ... order required no more of respondent, and other like ... carriers, than that they should not discontinue a portion of ... the essential service to the public in this State, ... voluntarily undertaken by them, without a determination upon ... the facts in each instance, by the proper administrative body ... of the State, that public welfare and convenience -- the ... conjoint interests of the carrier and of the public -- ... justified the discontinuance. (2) The ... ...
-
State ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Public Service Com'n of Missouri
... 82 S.W.2d 105 336 Mo. 985 State of Missouri at the Relation of the City of Sikeston, Appellant, v. Public Service Commission Supreme Court of Missouri April 17, 1935 ... Appeal ... from Cole Circuit Court; Hon. N. G. Sevier , Judge ... ... Affirmed ... Roger ... A. Bailey for City of Sikeston ... (1) ... Before a certificate of public ... ...
-
A. J. Meyer & Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Com'n
... ... Meyer & Company, Appellant, v. Unemployment Compensation Commission of Missouri, and William F. Metz No. 37397 Supreme Court of Missouri ... Jackoway-Katz Cap ... Co., 336 Mo. 1000, 82 S.W.2d 909; State ex rel. M ... K. & T. Railroad v. Public Serv. Comm., 227 Mo. 175, 210 ... provisions of this subsection, employment means service, ... including service in interstate commerce, performed for wages ... ...
-
State ex rel. Crown Coach Co. v. Public Service Com'n
... 179 S.W.2d 123 238 Mo.App. 287 State of Missouri, ex rel., Crown Coach Company, a Corporation, et al., Appellants, v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, Respondent Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City January 31, 1944 ... Appeal ... from the Cole County Circuit Court; Hon. Sam C. Blair, Judge ... ... Affirmed ... June ... R. Rose, C. J. Quimby, James P. Aylward, ... ...