Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas Transp. Com'n, 82-204

• Decision Date: 07 February 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-204,82-204
• Citation: 278 Ark. 353,645 S.W.2d 944
• Parties: KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 944

645 S.W.2d 944

278 Ark. 353

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 82-204.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Feb. 7, 1983.

Hardin, Jesson & Dawson by Rex M. Terry, Fort Smith, for appellant.

Maddox & Miller by Janis A. Richardson, Mena, for appellee.

HAYS, Justice.

The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, as an economy measure, elected to close its station at Mena, Arkansas, and assign the station agent to another location. Pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. § 73-809 (Repl.1979), the company filed its Notice of Discontinuance of Agency Station with the Arkansas Transportation Commission, asserting that the discontinuance would result in operating economies consistent with public convenience and necessity. The closing was opposed by Mena residents and railroad customers. After taking testimony the Commission found that the closing would not result in operating economies consistent with public convenience and necessity and denied the request. The denial was affirmed by the Circuit Court and the appeal is here under Rule 29(1)(d). We affirm.

Ark.Stat.Ann. § 73-809 (Repl.1979) provides that a railroad may discontinue an agency station by showing the Commission that it has operated the station at a financial loss for not less than one year, or that operating economies consistent with public convenience and necessity would result. The railway company conceded that its annual revenues had exceeded its expenses at Mena by an amount it declined to disclose, but it claimed that economies would be effected by eliminating direct station expenses, which exceeded $31,000.00 in 1980. The company said a time-and-motion study of the station showed only two and one-half productive hours of work being performed daily by the agent. The company said it was establishing a new waybilling system and taking all car orders by a toll-free telephone network at its customer service center in Shreveport. It argued that all the duties of the agency could be performed effectively through Shreveport and that the new arrangements would be just as satisfactory to railway customers as soon as they became used to it.

We have said that appeals from Circuit Court in cases of this type are heard de novo. Boyd v. The Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 222 Ark. 599, 262 S.W.2d 282 (1953). And that we review all the evidence and make such findings of fact and law as we deem just, proper and equitable, as in chancery cases. Arkansas Commerce Commission v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, 247 Ark. 1032, 448 S.W.2d 950 (1970). Fisher v. Branscum, 243 Ark. 516, 420 S.W.2d 882 (1967). But we have recognized that where the decision below is persuasive, or the evidence evenly balanced, full effect must be accorded...