L. & N.R. Co. v. Johnson's Admr.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1925 |
| Parties | Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Johnson's Administratrix. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Carriers — Railroads Must Render Adequate Service, Without Discrimination, to Public at Lowest Rates Possible. — Railroads, being servants of the people, must render adequate service, without discrimination, to public as a whole, and at the lowest rates possible consistent with a fair return on their property.
2. Railroads — Plea Held Bad in so far as Varying Contract to Build Depot. — In action for damages for failure to construct and maintain depot, plea that station was operated at increasing losses held bad, in so far as it sought to vary defendant's written contract to build depot near land of plaintiff's deceased, but held good against demurrer as setting up changed conditions since establishment of station.
3. Railroads — Abandonment of Depot Held Justified by Public Interests. — A railroad company, which constructed and maintained a depot pursuant to its contract with plaintiff's deceased, which did not, by its terms, require it to maintain same for any particular period, held entitled to abandon the station when the public interests necessitated abandonment by reason of changed conditions of traffic.
4. Railroads — Evidence of Decline in Income Held Admissible to Show Justification for Abandonment of Station. — In action against railroad company for breach of contract to construct and maintain a depot near the land of plaintiff's deceased, evidence of a decline in the income from the station held admissible in support of plea that public interest necessitated abandonment by reason of changed conditions of traffic.
5. Railroads — Company Not Responsible During Federal Control. — Railroad is not responsible for failure to maintain depot during federal control.
6. Railroads — Termination of Federal Control Revived Obligation to Maintain Depot. — Termination of federal control of railroads revived railroad's obligation, if any, to construct and maintain depot improperly removed during federal control.
7. Railroads — Question of Failure to Construct Depot Held for Jury. — Evidence of failure of defendant to construct depot within contract time required submission of question to jury with instructions defining damages.
8. Railroads — Measure of Damages for Failure to Build Station Stated. — Measure of damages for failure of defendant railroad company to build a depot, within the time agreed in its contract with an adjoining owner, held to be the legal interest on the amount by which the value of land of such owner would have been enhanced by the erection of the building for the time its erection was delayed.
9. Railroads — Station Suitable for Traffic Required. — Railroad agreeing with property owner to build depot held required only to build station suitable for requirements of traffic conditions at that place.
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court.
ROSE & STAMPER, HUNT, NORTHCUTT & BUSH and WOODWARD & WARFIELD for appellant.
C.F. SPENCER and C.K. JOHNSON for appellee.
Reversing.
In 1912, Thomas C. Johnson, who owned a boundary of land along the Kentucky river in Lee county, for a valuable consideration deeded to the appellant for the purpose of straightening its track, a right of way through that boundary. As a part of the consideration for this conveyance, but in an instrument separate from the deed, appellant contracted with Johnson "to construct and maintain a combined freight and passenger station and a sidetrack on the lands described in said deed," at a point between certain termini to be selected by Johnson, "the said depot to be constructed on or before completion by said railroad company of its contemplated railroad over and through said lands." The depot was completed in March, 1915, but whether or not this was on or before the completion by the railroad company of the railroad through Johnson's land cannot accurately be determined from this record. According to appellant's proof, it was. According to appellee's proof, it appears, although very vaguely, that it was not. The station as constructed was maintained, although appellee complains bitterly of the manner in which it was maintained, until March, 1919. In this month the United States Railroad Administration, which had had charge of appellant's railroad since 1917, tore down this depot and took away the sidetrack, and there has been no depot or sidetrack at this point or at any point on Johnson's land since then. The railroads were returned to their owners in 1920, and about a month thereafter, Johnson brought this suit against the appellant for breach of its contract to construct and maintain the depot and sidetrack. Pending this suit, Johnson died, and the case was revived in the name of the appellee as his administratrix. On the trial appellee secured a verdict for $20,000.00 and from that judgment appellant appeals.
At the outset of this case, we are confronted by the construction to be placed on the contract of the parties. It is true that appellant obligated itself to construct and maintain a depot and sidetrack, but the contract is absolutely silent concerning the period of time this obligation is to continue. The trial court submitted this case to the jury on the theory that this obligation was a permanent obligation, despite the fact that there was nothing said in the contract about it being a permanent obligation.
Contracts of this character have been before the courts on numerous occasions for interpretation. There is one line of cases which holds that so long as the railroad occupies the right of way which it secured as a part of the consideration for its contract to construct and maintain a depot or sidetrack, it must so maintain the same. See Gray v. Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co., 189 Ill. 400, 59 N.E. 950.
Another line of cases holds that a literal compliance with such a covenant or condition subsequent is all that is required, and that the railroad may cease at any time it wishes to maintain the track or depot.
A third line of cases, intermediate between the two theories above mentioned, holds that the railroad must continue to...
To continue reading
Request your trial