Hunt v. Chicago & A.R. Co

• Decision Date: 16 June 1888
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. HUNT, Attorney General, v. CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

130 Ill. 175

22 N.E. 857

PEOPLE ex rel. HUNT, Attorney General,

v.CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1888.

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; AMOS WATTS, Judge.

Geo. Hunt, Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Wise & Davis, for appellee.

SCOTT, J.

The petition in this case was exhibited by the attorney general in the circuit court of Madison county in the name, and on behalf, of the people against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, praying that the company be compelled, by a writ of mandamus, to establish a passenger and freight depot in the town of Upper Alton, upon the St. Louis, Jacksonville & Chicago Railroad, owned, operated, and controlled by respondent, at a suitable and convenient point, to accommodate the public and all persons desiring transportation for freights or passengers to and from such town, and to stop its trains, freight and passenger, or a sufficient number thereof to accommodate the public, and discharge freight and passengers thereat when so requested.

Undoubtedly railroad companies, unless controlled by charter contracts, or by some general law on the subject, are permitted much freedom of judgment or discretion as to the operation and equipment of their lines of road, and in the location and maintenance of depots, and in the adoption of the various conveniences for the public. That freedom to act for the best interests of the public in such matters is lodged in the president and board of directors. Where there is a failure from mere captiousness or other cause to so exercise the powers with which they are invested by law as to accommodate the public at business centers or elsewhere, or where there is such an abuse of their powers as works a public wrong, the general rule is the remedy must be obtained through legislation. The courts, either law or equity, are seldom, if ever, able to afford the requisite relief. In respect to the matter of locating depots this court said in Marsh v. Railroad Co., 64 Ill. 414: ‘Railroad companies, in order to fulfill one of the ends of their creation,-thepromotion of the public welfare,-should be left free to establish and re-establish their depots wheresover the accommodation of the wants of the public may require.’ More recently, in the case of Railroad Co. v. People, 120 Ill. 200, 11 N. E. Rep. 347, the general doctrine on this subject was restated, where it was said: ‘The company, however, is given, as it should be, a very large discretion in determining all questions relating to the equipment and operation of its road. Hence courts, as a general rule, will not interfere with the management of railways in these respects except where the act sought to be enforced is specific, and the right to its performance in the manner proposed is clear and undoubted.’ On turning to its original charter it is seen that the respondent corporation is declared to have the general management of its affairs for the complete exercise of its corporate powers, which of course include the right to fix the location and number of depots or stations at which it will receive and discharge freight and passengers on its line of road such as in the judgment of the company the public exigency demands.

The only act of the general assembly to which the attention of this court has been directed that seems intended to control this freedom of action or discretion given to railroad companies in such matters is the act of 1877. But that act, it will be seen, does not aid the demand made by this petition. It provides (section 1, Sess. Laws 1877, p. 165) ‘that all railroad companies in this state carrying passengers or freight shall, and they are hereby required to, build and maintain depots for the comfort of passengers and for the protection of shippers of freight, where such railroad companies are in the practice of receiving and delivering passengers and freight, at all towns and villages on the line of their roads having a population of five hundred or more.’ As has been seen, the prayer of the petition is that respondent may be compelled ‘to establish a passenger and freight depot in the town of Upper Alton,’ on the Jacksonville branch of its road, ‘at a suitable and convenient point to accommodate the public,’ and ‘to stop its trains, freight and passenger, or a sufficient number thereof to accommodate the public.’ Should the company be required to establish or appoint a station at Upper Alton for the purpose of receiving and discharging passengers and freight, it would follow, as a matter of course under the statute, it would be compelled ‘to build and maintain’ a depot at that point if the town contained a ‘population of five hundred or more.’ But this statute does not make it the duty of respondent to ‘establish a depot’ or station at every town or village on the line of its road having a ‘population of five hundred or more.’ It simply requires it shall ‘build and maintain depots'-that is buildings-for the ‘comfort of passengers and for the protection of shippers of freight.’ This petition does allege the town of Upper Alton contains a population in excess of that specified in the statute, but it is not averred it is a point on its line of road where respondent is ‘in the practice of receiving and delivering passengers and freight;’ so the demand made by this petition does not come within any duty imposed upon respondent by the provisions of this statute, nor does it appear it is made its duty by its original charter, or otherwise by law, to ‘establish a passenger and freight’ depot at the point indicated, and to stop its trains, passenger and freight, for the accommodation of the public. It not being shown that respondent owes any specific duty in this respect, imposed by statute or otherwise, the right to its performance being so clear and undoubted that it will be enforced by mandamus, the judgment of the lower court denying the writ must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

ON REHEARING.

(Oct. 31, 1889.)

BAILEY, J.

This was a petition for a mandamus, brought by the people of the state of Illinois, on the relation of the attorney general, against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, to compel said company to establish and maintain a station for the receipt and discharge of passengers and freight at Upper Alton, in Madison county.

The petition alleges that said company is a railroad corporation, organized under the laws of this state, and owning, operating, and controlling a line of railway in said county, known as the ‘St. Louis, Jacksonville & Chicago Railroad,’ and extending from Godfrey, a station in said county, to Wann, also a station in said county, said stations being seven miles apart; that said company is a common carrier, and operates and runs upon and over said railway two passenger trains daily from south to north, and one passenger train daily from north to south, and two or more freight trains daily in each direction; that about midway between said stations there is located upon the line of said railway the town of Upper Alton, the same being an incorporated town or village containing over 1,800 inhabitants; that many persons require the use of said railway in order to be transported thereon as passengers to and from said town of Upper Alton, and that in said town are many merchants, manufacturers, dealers, and business men, who require the transportation of freight, produce, and manufactures over said line of railway to and from said town of Upper Alton; ‘that the accommodation of the public living in and near to said town of Upper Alton, in the transportation of freight and passengers to and from said town, require, and long have required, that said Chicago & Alton Railroad Company establish a depot and freight-house at said town of Upper Alton, and stop its trains, both freight and passenger, thereat for receiving and discharging freight and passengers;’ that said company has acquired, and for many years has...