Grand Trunk Western Railway Company v. Railroad Commission of Indiana
| Decision Date | 28 May 1907 |
| Docket Number | 6,317 |
| Citation | 81 N.E. 524,40 Ind.App. 168 |
| Parties | GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF INDIANA ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Lake Circuit Court; Willis C. McMahan, Judge.
Suit by the Grand Trunk Western Railway Company against the Railroad Commission of Indiana and another. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals (Transferred from Supreme Court, see 167 Ind. 261).
Affirmed.
Anderson Parker & Crabill, for appellant.
C. V McAdams, for the commission.
E. C Field, J. B. Peterson and H. R. Kurrie, for appellee company.
Prior to and during the year 1880 a railroad company, known as the Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Company, owned and operated a line of railroad now owned and operated by the appellant. Its line of road ran east and west through the station called Maynard, in Lake county, in this State. In the year 1880 a railroad company, known as the Chicago & Indianapolis Air-Line Railway Company, constructed the line of road now owned and operated by appellee Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company, known as the "Monon," which line of road crossed the line of the Grand Trunk Western Railway at the station of Maynard. The appellant is the successor in rights and interests of the Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the appellee Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company is the successor in rights and interests of the Chicago & Indianapolis Air-Line Railway Company. At the time the last-mentioned line of railway was constructed the two companies then interested, the Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Chicago & Indianapolis Air-Line Railway Company, entered into a written contract, as follows:
"This agreement made and entered into near July 16, 188--, by and between the Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Company, party of the first part, and the Chicago & Indianapolis Air-Line Railway Company, party of the second part, witnesseth: That the party of the first part, for and in consideration of the performance by the party of the second part of the stipulations and agreements hereinafter set forth, doth give and grant to said party of the second part the right to construct and operate said Chicago & Indianapolis Air-Line Railway over and across the right of way of said Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway at the point where said Chicago & Indianapolis Air-Line Railway, as now located and in process of construction, shall cross the same at or near Maynard station on the line of said Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway, which said railway of the party of the second part shall have constructed, kept, and maintained at a grade on a level with the railway of said party of the first part at the point of crossing as above specified herein.
And said party of the second part, in consideration of the right to construct and operate said Chicago & Indianapolis Air-Line Railway across the right of way of said party of the first part, as above granted and set forth, agrees to construct, put in, and maintain good and sufficient frogs and crossings at the points where the track of said Chicago & Indianapolis Air-Line Railway crosses the track of the Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway, as aforesaid, and should the party of the first part, at any time hereafter, construct and lay down additional track or tracks at said point of intersection the party of the second part agrees in like manner to construct, put in, and maintain sufficient frogs and crossings to enable the party of the first part to cross the track or tracks of said second party's railway.
All of which crossings shall be put in at and upon the grade of the railway of the party of the first part, and shall be done in a good and substantial manner, so that the party of the first part shall be able to operate its road at that point with convenience and safety, and that said crossings shall be so maintained and kept in repair by the party of the second part at its individual expense forever.
And the party of the second part further agrees that it will at said point of intersection, erect, put up, and forever maintain good and substantial semaphores, or other signals, and provide the requisite watchmen to take charge of and operate the same, all of which shall be at the individual expense of said party of the second part.
In witness whereof the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written."
Under this agreement the Chicago & Indianapolis Air-Line Railway Company and its successor, the Monon Company, have, ever since said crossing was completed, maintained a semaphore, signal and watchmen at said crossing at their own expense.
On May 4, 1905, appellee Monon Company filed with the railroad commission of this state a written petition praying that an interlocking system be established at this crossing, and also at its crossing with another road in the close vicinity. Due notice was given to all the parties. The railroad commission met pursuant to statute, examined the crossing, and afterwards, all the railroad companies interested appearing, the commission ordered that interlocking switches should be installed and put in use at this crossing, and that the cost of installing the interlocking plant should be apportioned between appellant and appellee Monon Company, upon the basis of functions of levers used in the operation of the plant for the benefit of the several roads respectively. It further ordered that the expense of operating the device should be sustained by the two companies interested and affected, upon the same basis, except that the petitioner should contribute the sum of $ 780 per annum to the expense fund, and the expense in excess of this sum should be apportioned between the two companies as above stated. Afterwards the appellant herein filed its petition in the Lake Circuit Court, setting forth a description of the interlocking system ordered installed by the railroad commission, and the manner of operating the same, averring that the cost of installing such plant would be $ 5,000; that the cost of maintenance and operation would be $ 1,600 per annum, and that the present expense of said crossing was $ 900; and objecting to the order and regulation of the railroad commission made relative to said crossing, on the ground that it compels the Grand Trunk Western Railway company to pay part of the cost and expense of erecting said interlocking system, including semaphores and other signals, and for the reason that it makes no provision for the payment by the Monon Company of any increased cost of maintaining and operating the signals. It further alleges that, by virtue of the contract above specified, it became the duty of the Monon Company to pay all the cost and expenses of keeping in repair, operating and managing the crossing aforesaid; that the order is in dereliction of the rights of the appellant under the contract, and asks an order to annul and set aside the order, or to modify the same, so far as to compel the Monon Company to pay all the cost and expense of installing, operating and maintaining the interlocking switch at the crossing.
The proceeding instituted by the Monon Company to have an interlocking switching device maintained at this crossing is pursuant to the statute upon that subject, which originally lodged the power to order the installation of such interlocking switching device in the hands of the Auditor of State, from whose hands it was transferred by the railroad commission act to the hands of the railroad commission.
The first question that confronts the court in the consideration of this case is the question of jurisdiction. It is contended by appellee Monon Company that the action of the railroad commission on this subject is final and conclusive on the parties, and not subject to review in court. The argument is made that the law providing for the installation of interlocking switching devices at railroad crossings is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial