242 S.W. 938 (Mo. 1922), State ex rel. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission of State of Missouri
|Citation:||242 S.W. 938, 294 Mo. 364|
|Opinion Judge:||REEVES, C. --|
|Party Name:||THE STATE ex rel. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF MISSOURI|
|Attorney:||W. F. Evans, E. T. Miller, and A. P. Stewart for appellant. R. Perry Spencer, General Counsel, and James D. Lindsay, Assistant Counsel, for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||REEVES, C. Railey, C., concurs; White, C., not sitting. David E. Blair, J., concurs in Paragraphs 2 and 3 and the result.|
|Case Date:||June 08, 1922|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court. -- Hon. John G. Slate, Judge.
(1) The order of respondent, affirmed by the circuit court, is arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and excessive, and is without warrant on the record. (2) The record conclusively showing that the inhabitants of Festus are afforded ample facilities for local travel between said point and St. Louis, without the stopping of appellant's interstate passenger trains, the order of respondent, affirmed by the circuit court, requiring the stoppage of said trains at Festus, becomes a direct burden upon and an unlawful interference with interstate commerce, and is, therefore, void because in violation of and in conflict with Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 254 U.S. 535; Ill. Cent. Railway Co. v. Illinois, 163 U.S. 142; Cleveland Railway Co. v. Illinois, 177 U.S. 521; McNeill v. Southern Railway Co., 202 U.S. 543, 561; Mississippi Railroad Comm. v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co., 203 U.S. 344, 346; Atlantic Coast Line v. Wharton, 207 U.S. 334; Herndon v. Chicago Railway Co., 218 U.S. 135, 156; Chicago Railway Co. v. Wisconsin Railroad Comm., 237 U.S. 226; Delaware Railway Co. v. Van Santwood, 216 F. 252.
(1) The order is valid, because its enforcement requires appellant, in the most practical way, to furnish the additional service needed to give that adequate and convenient service, not otherwise provided, which the conditions shown in the record call for as reasonable and necessary. (2) An order requiring the stopping of an interstate train at a station where adequate and convenient facilities are not otherwise afforded, is not an unauthorized interference with interstate commerce, and particularly so when the interstate train can make the stop without substantial interference with its running schedule. Lake Shore & Michigan So. Railroad v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285; Mississippi Railroad Co. v. Illinois Central, 203 U.S. 335; Atlantic Coast Line v. Wharton, 207 U.S. 328; C., B. & Q. v. Railroad Comm., 237 U.S. 220; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe v. Texas, 246 U.S. 58; State ex rel. Mo. P. Ry. v. Comm., 273 Mo. 632; State ex rel. M., K. & T. Ry. v. Comm., 277 Mo. 175; State ex rel. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Comm., 235 S.W. 131; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 254 U.S. 535.
[294 Mo. 367]
This appeal challenges the validity of an order of the Public Service Commission requiring appellant to stop two of its interstate passenger trains at Festus, for the purpose of taking on and discharging passengers. The order was made upon...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP