Chicago And Erie Railroad Company v. Luddington

• Decision Date: 24 May 1910
• Docket Number: 21,541
• Citation: 91 N.E. 939,175 Ind. 35
• Parties: Chicago and Erie Railroad Company v. Luddington et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

91 N.E. 939

175 Ind. 35

Chicago and Erie Railroad Company v. Luddington et al

No. 21,541

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 24, 1910

Rehearing Denied December 16, 1910, Reported at: 175 Ind. 35 at 41.

From Porter Circuit Court; Herbert S. Barr, Special Judge.

Drainage petition by Joseph D. Luddington and others, against which the Chicago and Erie Railroad Company remonstrates. From a judgment against remonstrant, it appeals.

Affirmed.

Wiley & Jones, W. O. Johnson, Addison C. Harris, H. R. Kurrie Stuart, Hammond & Simms, J. B. Peterson and Johnston & Bartholomew, for appellant.

H. H Loring, for appellees.

OPINION

Monks, J.

Appellees, in 1908, brought this proceeding in the court below for the construction of a public ditch under the drainage law of 1907 (Acts 1907 p. 508, § 6140 et seq. Burns 1908).

Appellant filed a remonstrance for damages on account of the crossing of its right of way by said drain. Such proceedings were had that appellant was assessed with benefits in the sum of $ 150, and the proposed work of drainage was established. From this judgment appellant appealed to this court.

The controlling question is whether a railroad company acquires its right of way subject to the right of the State to extend public ditches across it, and subject to the condition that it must place, keep and maintain its road across said public ditch in such condition as not unnecessarily to impair the usefulness or interfere with the free use of said ditch.

It is urged by appellant that it did not acquire its right of way subject to any such condition. Subdivision five of § 5195 Burns 1908, § 3903 R. S. 1881, and § 7683 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 581, § 35, are cited by appellant as controlling this question. Said subdivision reads as follows: "To construct its road upon or across any stream of water, watercourse, road, highway, railroad or canal, so as not to interfere with the free use of the same, which the route of its road shall intersect, in such manner as to afford security for life and property; but the corporation shall restore the stream or watercourse, road or highway, thus intersected, to its former state, or in a sufficient manner not to unnecessarily impair its usefulness or injure its franchises." Said § 7683 is substantially the same.

It is settled law in this State, that it is the duty of a railroad that crosses a highway or watercourse to restore it to its former condition of usefulness and safety, even in the absence of any express statutory requirement. 3 Elliott, Railroads (2d ed.) §§ 1092, 1105; Elliott, Roads and Sts. (2d ed.) §§ 779, 780; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. State, ex rel. (1898), 149 Ind. 276, 278, 49 N.E. 2, and authorities cited; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. State, ex rel. (1871), 37 Ind. 489, 502. See, also, Ayler v. County Commissioners, etc. (1878), 49 Md. 257, 33 Am. Rep. 249, 252; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Mayor, etc. (1876), 46 Md. 425, 444-446; City of Zanesville v. Fannan (1895), 53 Ohio St. 605, 615, 42 N.E. 703, 53 Am. St. 664; Cleveland v. City Counsel, etc. (1897), 102 Ga. 233, 29 S.E. 584, 43 L. R. A. 638, and cases cited; Tiedeman, Mun. Corp. § 306.

Public ditches established under the laws of this State are public ditches of the State, and, like public highways established under the laws of this State, are under the full control of the legislature. The construction and repair of public ditches under the laws of the State, like the establishment and improvement of public highways, are matters of public or state concern, and the exercise of a state function. State, ex rel., v. Board, etc. (1908), 170 Ind. 595, 85 N.E. 513, and cases cited.

As was said in the case of State, ex rel., v. Fox (1902), 158 Ind. 126, 135, 136, 63 N.E. 19: "There are important powers delegated to municipalities which concern every citizen of the State, and for the proper exercise of which the State cannot abdicate responsibility by committing them to local officers. * * * In every matter which affects the safety, morals, health, or general welfare of the people at large, or of a considerable number of them, there is undoubtedly reserved in the State the power to supervise, control, and even coerce, local officers in the discharge of public duties, and even to send its own agents into any organized district, if necessary, to enforce a public right, or accomplish a public benefit. For instance, every citizen has the right to travel the public highways,--those in cities and towns, where, according to common usage, they are made, dug up, and improved by local action, as well as those in rural districts. In every part of these highways the traveler is entitled to the State's protection from violence, and from dangerous situations. For the preservation of public health, for the prevention of disease and epidemics, each inhabitant has an interest in the proper drainage of lands, and in the suppression of all insanitary conditions, whether rural or urban, and without regard for territorial boundaries, and the right to look to the State for protection against these evils so far as the same may be legally afforded. Likewise the enforcement of the State's criminal and revenue laws is of equal importance to all. In all these, and kindred things, the setting up of corporation lines forms no barrier to the strong arm of the State in safeguarding every public interest."

It is clear therefore that the rule stated as to a railroad's duty, in the absence of any statutory requirements, to restore a highway to its former condition of usefulness and safety, when crossed by said railroad, applies also to railroads which cross public ditches. There is nothing in the law authorizing a railroad company to lay out its right of way and construct its tracks thereon that limits the power of the State to extend public ditches and highways across such right of way, even if the State could be bound by such limitation, which latter question we need not determine.

This court in the case of Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v Soice (1891), 128 Ind. 105, 107, 27 N.E. 429, said, concerning the duty of railroads under said subdivision five of § 5195, supra: "Railroad companies, no doubt, have the right to construct their roads across public ditches without liability, if they restore them to their original state and usefulness." Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Greb (1905), 34 Ind.App. 625, 630, 73 N.E. 620, declares...