Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Wis.

Decision Date13 June 1908
Citation116 N.W. 905,136 Wis. 146
PartiesMINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. STE. M. RY. CO. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dane County; E. Ray Stevens, Judge.

Action by the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company against the Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, to vacate an order of the commission ordering defendant to establish a station and stop trains thereat. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Dodge, J., dissenting.

On March 10, 1908, the following per curiam order herein was made and filed:

“Ordered that this cause be placed at the foot of the assignment of cases for April 21, 1908, and be reargued upon the following questions: (1) What is the scope of review by the courts of the orders of the Railroad Commission of Wisconsin contemplated in the action provided for by section 16, c. 362, p. 560, Laws of 1905? (2) Is it within the legislative power to confer upon courts authority to review the reasonableness of rules or orders of the Railroad Commission? (3) What is the true construction of the word “unreasonable” in said section? Ordered, further, that the clerk of this court transmit a copy of this order to the Attorney General and to each of the resident counsel of the principal lines of railroad, who are hereby invited to participate in said reargument and to serve and file briefs.”

For the appellant there was cited section 1801, St. 1898; R. R. Com. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 71 Kan. 193, 80 Pac. 53;Morgan's Ry. Co. v. R. R. Commission, 109 La. 247, 33 South. 214; R. R. Com. v. Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co., 111 La. 133, 35 South. 487;State v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 76 Minn. 469, 79 N. W. 510;State v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 90 Minn. 277, 96 N. W. 81;State v. Northern Pac. R., 89 Minn. 367, 95 N. W. 297;Miss. R. R. Com. v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co., 203 U. S. 335, 27 Sup. Ct. 90, 51 L. Ed. 209; R. R. Com. Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 6 Sup. Ct. 334, 388, 1191, 29 L. Ed. 636;Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 8 Sup. Ct. 1028, 31 L. Ed. 841;St. Louis, etc., v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 15 Sup. Ct. 484, 39 L. Ed. 567;Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 22 Sup. Ct. 95, 46 L. Ed. 298;Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Minn., 186 U. S. 257, 22 Sup. Ct. 900, 46 L. Ed. 1151;Budd v. N. Y., 143 U. S. 517, 12 Sup. Ct. 468, 36 L. Ed. 247; Ch., etc., R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 12 Sup. Ct. 400, 36 L. Ed. 176;Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 14 Sup. Ct. 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014;Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819;Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Philadelphia Co., 220 Pa. 100, 68 Atl. 676; C. B. & Q. R. Co. v. Jones, 149 Ill. 361, 37 N. E. 247, 24 L. R. A. 141, 41 Am. St. Rep. 278;Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 48 N. W. 98, 12 L. R. A. 436, 31 Am. St. Rep. 477; C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v Dey, 35 Fed. 866, 1 L. R. A. 744;State v. Des Moines & K. R. Co., 87 Iowa, 644, 54 N. W. 461;Storrs v. Pensacola & A. R. Co., 29 Fla. 617, 11 South. 226;State v. Alabama & V. R. Co., 68 Miss. 653, 9 South. 469;People v. R. R. Com'rs, 158 N. Y. 421;53 N. E. 163;People v. R. R. Com'rs, 160 N. Y. 202;54 N. E. 697;Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 162 U. S. 184, 16 Sup. Ct. 700, 40 L. Ed. 935;Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. 666, 40 L. Ed. 940;Interstate Com. Com. v. Alabama M. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. 45, 42 L. Ed. 414;Interstate Com. Com. v. Chi. & Great W. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 141 Fed. 1003;Steenerson v. Great Nor. Ry. Co., 60 Minn. 461, 62 N. W. 826;Jacobson v. Wis., etc., Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 519, 74 N. W. 893, 40 L. R. A. 389, 70 Am. St. Rep. 358;State v. Willmar, etc., R. Co., 88 Minn. 448, 93 N. W. 112;State v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 76 Minn. 469, 79 N. W. 510; Chi., etc., Ry. Co. v. R. R. Com., 38 Ind. App. 439, 78 N. E. 338;Board of R. R. Com'rs v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 71 Kan. 193, 80 Pac. 53; R. R. Com. v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 90 Tex. 340, 38 S. W. 750; R. R. Com. v. Weld, 96 Tex. 394, 73 S. W. 529;Dowling v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 92 Wis. 63, 65 N. E. 738, 31 L. R. A. 112;In re North Milwaukee, 93 Wis. 616, 67 N. W. 1033, 33 L. R. A. 638;State v. Burdge, 95 Wis. 390, 70 N. W. 347, 37 L. R. A. 157, 60 Am. St. Rep. 123;Madison v. Madison G. Co., 129 Wis. 268, 108 N. W. 65, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 529;Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Com., 206 U. S. 1, 27 Sup. Ct. 585, 51 L. Ed. 933;Ill. Cent. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com, 206 U. S. 441, 27 Sup. Ct. 700, 51 L. Ed. 1128; Plott v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 63 Wis. 511, 23 N. W. 412;Railway Co. v. State, 74 Neb. 77, 103 N. W. 1087;N. P. Ry. Co. v. Dustin, 142 U. S. 492, 12 Sup. Ct. 283, 35 L. Ed. 1092;In re Griner, 16 Wis. 423;State v. Whitford, 54 Wis. 150, 11 N. W. 424;Nash v. Fries, 129 Wis. 120, 108 N. W. 210;State v. Chittenden, 127 Wis. 468, 107 N. W. 500;In re Linden, 112 Wis. 523, 88 N. W. 645;State v. La Crosse, 107 Wis. 654, 84 N. W. 242;Adams v. Beloit, 105 Wis. 363, 81 N. W. 869, 47 L. R. A. 441;State v. Redmon (Wis.) 114 N. W. 137;Le Feber v. West Allis, 119 Wis. 608, 97 N. W. 203, 100 Am. St. Rep. 917;Tilly v. Mitchell & L. Co., 121 Wis. 1, 98 N. W. 969, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1007;State v. Houser, 122 Wis. 534, 100 N. W. 964;Interstate Com. Com. v. Chi. & Great W. Ry. Co., 209 U. S. 108, 28 Sup. Ct. 493, 52 L. Ed. 705;Platt v. Lecocq, (C. C. A.) 158 Fed. 723.

The respondent, in addition to many of the above cases, cited State v. Anson (Wis.) 112 N. W. 475;Trustees of Saratoga Springs v. Gas Co., 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693;East Wis. Ry. Co. v. Hackett (Wis.) 115 N. W. 376; The Granger Cases, 94 U. S. 155, 181, 24 L. Ed. 94;Attorney Gen. v. Railroad Companies, 35 Wis. 425;State v. Losby, 115 Wis. 57, 90 N. W. 188;State v. Williams, 123 Wis. 61, 100 N. W. 1048;Riverside Oil Co. v. Hitchcock, 190 U. S. 316, 23 Sup. Ct. 689, 47 L. Ed. 1074;Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U. S. 106, 24 Sup. Ct. 595, 48 L. Ed. 894;San Diego L. Co. v. Nat. City, 174 U. S. 739, 19 Sup. Ct. 804, 43 L. Ed. 1154;San Diego L. Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. 571, 47 L. Ed. 892; C., M. & St. P. R. v. Minn., 134 U. S. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 33 L. Ed. 970;Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 162 U. S. 184, 16 Sup. Ct. 700, 40 L. Ed. 935;Texas & Pac. Co. v. Abilene Co., 204 U. S. 426, 27 Sup. Ct. 350, 51 L. Ed. 553;Steenerson v. Great Nor. Ry. Co., 69 Minn. 353, 72 N. W. 713;In re Auburn, etc., R. Co., 37 App. Div. 162, 55 N. Y. Supp. 895;People v. Board of R. R. Com'rs, 53 App. Div. 61, 65 N. Y. Supp. 597;Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa, 234, 91 N. W. 1081;Atlantic Coast Line v. Wharton, 207 U. S. 328, 28 Sup. Ct. 121; and other cases.

Sanborn & Blake, E. M. Hyzer, C. H. Van Alstine, and Miller, Mack & Fairchild (Alfred H. Bright, of counsel), for appellant.

F. L. Gilbert, Atty. Gen., and Russell Jackson, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Olin & Butler, of counsel), for respondent.

TIMLIN, J.

On September 15, 1906, the Railroad Commission of Wisconsin upon complaint made by and in behalf of a number of persons residing in the town of Garfield, Polk county, and after hearing said complainants and the railway company, made an order that the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company erect and construct at a point on its line between the stations of Nye and Deronda, which point was formerly known as Dwight's Siding or Spur, a platform suitable for the loading and unloading of cream and other merchandise shipped by express; that such platform should be constructed so as to be accessible to teams, and of the kind and dimensions usually and customarily furnished at small stations where no depot is maintained, and should be sufficient to enable passengers to get on and off trains with safety. The railway company was further ordered to stop its local passenger trains numbered 84 and 85, as shown on its time-card of August 10, 1906, at the point above designated for the purpose of receiving and discharging passengers and express packages. Except in the season during which cream is shipped, the trains are required to stop only upon signal or request by prospective or actual passengers. According to appellant's time-card of August 10, 1906, Nye is 61.8 miles and Deronda 69.6 miles eastwardly from Minneapolis, and each about 10 miles nearer to St. Paul. Local passenger train No. 84, east bound, arrives at Nye at 10:54 a. m. and at Deronda at 11:10 a. m., daily except Sunday. Local passenger train No. 85, west bound, arrives at Deronda at 2:47 p. m. and at Nye at 3:06 p. m., daily except Sunday. Nye and Deronda are 7.8 miles apart. The new stopping place, called Dwight, is about midway between the stations and in or about the center of an agricultural and dairying community consisting of 64 families of 294 persons, and this area, 2 by 3 miles in extent, is naturally tributary to Dwight for railroad purposes. The probable contribution to railroad traffic from Dwight will be six cans of cream daily in summer and three cans three times a week in winter, together with some shipments of butter and eggs and an occasional passenger, all of which would at current rates pay the railroad company a small profit over and above the expense caused by this extra stop at Dwight. There are five flag stations in the first 114 miles eastwardly from Minneapolis, at which trains numbered 84 and 85 stop. These trains carry no freight, but do carry express packages in a sort of combination car. The railway company formerly maintained a spur at Dwight. The order does not prevent the trains numbered 84 and 85 from making their ordinary and usual connections, and the stop is attended with no danger on account of the proximity of the trains in question to other trains on the same road at that hour. There is a good road from Dwight to Deronda, where there is a small village or hamlet. At Dwight there is a general store, a church, and a schoolhouse. There are other evidential...

To continue reading

Request your trial
118 cases
  • Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1913
    ...N. W. 549; R. R. Comm. Cases, 116 U. S. 336, 6 Sup. Ct. 334, 388, 1191, 29 L. Ed. 636; Minn., St. Paul, etc., Railway Co. v. R. Comms., 136 Wis. 146, 162, 116 N. W. 905, 911, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 821. The provision for keeping the departments of government separate does not mean an absolute ......
  • Murray v. Public Utilities Commission
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1915
    ... ... service required ( Minneapolis, St. P. etc. R. Co. v ... Wisconsin R. R. Commission, 6 Wis. 146, 116 N.W. 905, ... 17 L. R. A., N. S., 821); (b) that ... ...
  • State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1908
    ... ... Kan. 467, 92 P. 606; ... [47 So. 972] ... Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. v. Railroad ... Commissioners Wis.) 116 N.W. 905; St. Louis, I. M. & S ... Ry. Co., v ... ...
  • Williams v. Evans
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1917
    ...its law shall be operative or applicable only upon the subsequent establishment of some fact, M. St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. v. R. R. Commission, 136 Wis. 146, 116 N. W. 905,17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 821;Cargo of Brig Aurora v. United States, 7 Cranch, 382, 3 L. Ed. 378. In all such cases, when it d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT