Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Elgin, J.&E. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1940
• Docket Number: No. 25618.,25618.
• Citation: Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Elgin, J.&E. Ry. Co., 374 Ill. 60, 28 N.E.2d 97 (Ill. 1940)
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN v. ELGIN, J. & E. RY. CO.

374 Ill. 60

28 N.E.2d 97

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN

v.ELGIN, J. & E. RY. CO.

No. 25618.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 14, 1940.

Proceeding by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen against the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company, on complaint filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission alleging improper service of caboose cars, wherein the commission granted the relief sought. From an order of the circuit court on appeal, reversing in part and affirming in part the commission's order, defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded with directions.Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Harry M. Fisher, Judge.

Harry I. Allen and Paul R. Conaghan, both of Chicago (Knapp, Allen & Cushing, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

John E. Cassidy, Atty. Gen., and Abram A. Schwarzbach, of Chicago (Harry R. Booth and George H. O'Brien, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

WILSON, Justice.

The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a complaint, which it twice amended, with the Illinois Commerce Commission against the defendant, the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Illinois Railway Company, a belt line railway operating from Joliet to points elsewhere in Illinois and in Indiana. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was endangering the lives, health, safety and comfort of its trainmen and switchmen by failing to service the caboose cars operating on its road in this State (1) with drinking water and ice, and (2) with proper containers and drinking cups. The defendant interposed a motion to dismiss and filed an answer, each challenging the sufficiency of the second amended and supplemental complaint, the jurisdiction of the commission, and, in its application to the alleged facts, the validity of the Public Utilities act. By its final order, the commission denied the motion to dismiss, and directed the defendant (1) to furnish the ice and water containers, and drinking cups, in the cabooses on its trains operating in Illinois, (2) to require its supplymen in its East Joliet yard (a) to fill and replenish the containers, certain qualifications being prescribed as to the source of the water supply, and (b) to maintain an adequate supply of drinking cups. Upon appeal, the circuit court of Cook county found that the commission had jurisdiction and that its findings were supported by the evidence, but that the portion of its order which required the service to be performed by specific employees, was arbitrary and void. The court therefore decided that ‘as to such portions of the order requiring the furnishing of water and ice service and drinking cups to be done by certain specific employees of the company, the order is reversed and set aside and as to all the other parts of the order, it is hereby affirmed.’ From this order the defendant has prosecuted an appeal.

The only question requiring consideration is whether the order of the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction. The defendant contends that the commission's order was, in effect, modified or revised, while the plaintiff maintains that it was composed of several parts, each of which the court had authority to, and did separately determine.

Section 68 of the Public Utilities act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, chap. 111 2/3, par. 72, p. 2527), so far as pertinent to the propriety of the order, provides: ‘Any person or corporation affected * * * may appeal to the circuit or superior court * * * for the purpose of having the reasonableness or lawfulness of the rule, regulation, order or decision inquired into and determined.’ Said appeal ‘shall be entered upon the records of said circuit or superior court and shall be tried therein without formal pleadings, but otherwise according to the rules governing other civil cases, so far as the same are applicable. * * * No new or additional evidence may be introduced * * * but the appeal shall be heard on the record of the Commission as certified to by it. The findings and conclusions of the Commission on questions of fact shall be held prima facie to be true and as found by the Commission; and a rule, regulation, order or decision of the Commission shall not be set aside unless it clearly appears that the finding of the Commission was against the manifest weight of the evidence * * *, or that the [order] was without jurisdiction of the Commission. If it appears that the commission failed to receive evidence properly proffered, * * * the court shall remand the case to the Commission with instructions to receive the testimony so proffered and rejected, and to enter a new order based upon the evidence theretofore taken, and such new evidence as it is directed to receive.’

We have recently held that the Commerce Commission must conform its orders to the specific requirements and limitations of the act of the legislature from which its authority is derived. Rockwell Lime Co. v. Commerce Comm., 373 Ill. 309, 26 N.E.2d 99. Similarly, the circuit court, upon an appeal from an order of...