Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Van Santvoord
Decision Date | 06 June 1916 |
Citation | 232 F. 978 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Parties | DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. v. VAN SANTVOORD et al. |
F. W Thomson, of Syracuse, N.Y., for complainant.
Ledyard P. Hale, of Albany, N.Y., for Public Service Commission.
S. J Kelly, of Syracuse, N.Y., for residents of South Granby Lamson, and Little Utica.
This matter was before this court on motion for an injunction pendente lite, and the injunction was granted.In deciding the application this court wrote an opinion which is reported in 216 F. 252.No additional evidence has been submitted, and the parties stipulated in the evidence taken before the Public Service Commission, Second District, State of New York.There is no dispute in regard to the facts, unless it be the inferences that may be drawn whether or not the public convenience demands that the complainant here restore the two trains ordered restored by the Public Service Commission prior to the bringing of this action.The facts are as follows:
The complainant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania.Since 1869, the complainant has operated by virtue of a lease the Oswego & Syracuse Railroad, running from the city of Oswego on the shores of Lake Ontario to the city of Syracuse.The city of Syracuse is some 35 miles from Oswego and on the main line of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.The main line of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company extends from Hoboken, opposite the city of New York, through New Jersey and the eastern part of Pennsylvania, to the city of Binghamton, in the state of New York, and thence on westerly to the city of Buffalo.The complainant company also leases and operates the Syracuse & Binghamton Railroad, extending from the city of Binghamton aforesaid to the city of Syracuse, and by means of these leased lines has a continuous line of road from Hoboken, through Scranton, Pa., and Binghamton, N.Y., and thence on through the city of Cortland to Syracuse, and on to Oswego.The complainant, the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company does a large interstate and considerable intrastate business.The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad runs from the city of Buffalo, through Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, and thence down the Hudson river valley to the city of New York.That road also has a line connecting with its main line running from the city of Syracuse to the city of Oswego.The New York, Ontario & Western Railroad extends from Weehawken, opposite the city of New York, through New Jersey, and across the state of New York, through the city of Oneida, to the city of Fulton, on the Oswego river, and to the city of Oswego.These branch lines of the New York Central Railroad Company and of the complainant company also run through the city of Fulton.Two of them, as seen, run direct to the city of Syracuse from Oswego, and the New York, Ontario & Western connects with the New York Central at Oneida.There is also a line of road, a trolley line, running direct from the city of Oswego to the city of Syracuse, and this is one of the lines of the Empire United Railways.This trolley line practically parallels the leased line of the complainant company, Oswego & Syracuse Railroad, from Syracuse to Oswego.This trolley line passes through the city of Fulton, which is 24 miles from Syracuse and 11 miles from Oswego and has a population of 10,480.Syracuse has a population of 137,249, and Oswego has a population of 23,368.It is seen that the cities of Oswego, Fulton, and Syracuse have abundant railroad facilities, inasmuch as the Ontario & Western Railroad Company operates two passenger trains each way daily, and the New York Central Railroad operates four passenger trains each way daily, and the complainant company now operates two passenger trains each way daily, and the said Empire Railways operate or run a trolley car every half hour between Oswego and Syracuse each way all day and a part of the night.
For many years prior to November, 1913, the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company operated a passenger train service between the city of Oswego and the city of Syracuse in accordance with the following schedule, viz.: Four trains per day from Syracuse to Oswego, known as Nos. 911, 915, 903, and 919, and also four trains per day between Oswego and Syracuse, known as Nos. 904, 906, 916, and 912.This train service between the cities mentioned was established prior to the construction and operation of the trolley line referred to, and which, as stated, parallels the line of the complainant substantially.In recent years there has been a large increase in travel through this section between Oswego and Syracuse by means of automobiles, and of course the trolley line has taken a large portion of the travel formerly going to the Lackawanna.In 1884 the gross revenue of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company for operating its four trains each way on the Oswego & Syracuse Railroad, between the cities of Oswego and Syracuse, amounted to $103,660.37.By reason of the building and operating of the competing lines referred to, especially the trolley line, this revenue steadily decreased, without any change in the schedule of the complainant's trains, until in 1912 it amounted to only $36,111.36, a decrease in gross revenue of $67,549.01 for 1912, as compared with 1884.In 1908 the gross revenue of the complainant company from this passenger service was $58,452.64, while after the trolley line went into operation, and in 1912, it was reduced to $36,111.36.For the year 1912the complainant operated these four trains each way between the cities of Oswego and Syracuse at a loss of $149,563.49.For some years the complainant has been operating this passenger service in this territory between Syracuse and Oswego at a large loss.The total passenger revenue of train 919 for the first 16 days of November, 1913, was only $35.73.On November 5, 1913, it was only 20 cents, and on November 3, 70 cents, and on November 7, $1, and on November 13, the same year, 40 cents.On the 2d day of November, 1913, the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company withdrew from its said service the trains known as Nos. 915 and 919, running from Syracuse to Oswego, and trains Nos. 904 and 916, running from Oswego t Syracuse.
Between Syracuse and Oswego, a distance of 35 miles, the Delaware Lackawanna & Western Railroad (leased line) runs through Baldwinsville, 12 miles from Syracuse, with a population of 3,099, Lamson, 16 miles from Syracuse, with a population of 75, South Granby, 19 miles from Syracuse, with a population of 84, the city of Fulton, 24 miles from Syracuse and 11 miles from Oswego, with a population of 10,480, and Minetto, between Fulton and Oswego, with a population of 250.Lysander, with a population of 305, is 5 miles west of Lamson, and Little Utica is 3 miles west of Lamson, and has a population of 100.Baldwinsville is abundantly supplied with railroad and trolley service, without these two trains each way per day in question, and this is true of Fulton, as we have seen, and also of Minetto.The country between Syracuse and Oswego is agricultural, and of ordinary fertility, and not at all thickly populated.This trolley line operates from the business center of Syracuse, and through the business centers of Baldwinsville, Fulton, and Minetto, to the business center of Oswego, but passes Lamson and South Granby about 3 1/2 miles east of the center of those hamlets.The highways are in good condition.It thus appears that the train service on the complainant's road is reduced to two trains each way per day so far as Lamson, South Granby, and Little Utica are concerned, and so far as the residents there desire to use that road.By driving by team or auto some 3 1/2 miles these people can get a trolley car every half hour.In short, the only persons to suffer any inconvenience whatever by taking off these trains are those at Lamson, South Granby, Lysander, and Little Utica; but they still have two...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Public Service Commission
...207 U.S. 328, 28 S.Ct. 121, 52 L.Ed. 230; Delaware, L. & W. Ry. Co. v. Van Santwood et al., D.C., 216 F. 252; Delaware, L. & W. Ry. Co. v. Van Santvoord, 232 F. 978; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Nagle, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 532; Id., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 812; Northern Pac. Ry. v. Board of R. R. Com'rs,......
-
Chicago, B. & QR Co. v. BOARD OF RAILROAD COM'RS
...605, 609, 614, 35 S.Ct. 437, 59 L.Ed. 745; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Van Santwood, D.C., 216 F. 252, 255; also Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Van Santwood, D.C., 232 F. 978. The Board's quotation from one of the Montana cases is appropriate here, and reads as follows: "Great loss is claimed ......
-
State v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 27707.
...117 Wash. 510, 201 P. 749; Standard Oil Co. v. Kearney, 106 Neb. 558, 184 N. W. 109, 18 A. L. R. 95; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Van Santvoord (D. C.) 232 F. 978, 979; New York ex rel. v. Public Service Com., 269 U. S. 244, 46 S. Ct. 83, 70 L. Ed. 255; Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Boro......
-
Chi., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Municipalities of Holdrege (In re Ch., B. & Q. R. Co.)
...v. Massachusetts, 308 U.S. 79, 60 S.Ct. 34, 84 L.Ed. 93;Delaware, L. & W. R. R. v. Van Santwood, D.C., 216 F. 252;Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Van Santvoord, D.C., 232 F. 978;Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Mobile & O. R. R. Co., 244 U.S. 388, 37 S.Ct. 602, 61 L.Ed. 1216;Blease v. Char......