Mississippi R. Commission v. Mobile & O.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 March 1918
• Docket Number: 19870
• Citation: Mississippi R. Commission v. Mobile & O.R. Co., 78 So. 153, 117 Miss. 257 (Miss. 1918)
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI R. COMMISSION v. MOBILE & O. R. CO. ET AL
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

78 So. 153

117 Miss. 257

MISSISSIPPI R. COMMISSION v. MOBILE & O. R. CO. ET AL

No. 19870

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 25, 1918

Division A

APPEAL from the chancery court of Hinds county, HON. O. B. TAYLOR Chancellor.

Suit by the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company and others against the Mississippi Railroad Commission. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Decree affirmed.

Ross A Collins, attorney-general, for appellant.

Carl Fox and S. R. Prince, for appellee.

OPINION

SYKES, J.

The Railroad Commission of Mississippi prosecutes this appeal from a final decree of the chancery court of Hinds county annulling and perpetually enjoining the commission from the enforcement of three orders of the appellant, which, in brief, required the three appellee railroad companies to build a union station in the city of West Point.

The Railroad Commission, upon the petition of a number of citizens of the city of West Point and after hearing testimony, under section 4864, Code of 1906 (section 7649 Hemingway's Code), and a personal examination of existing conditions, ordered the erection of a union passenger depot. This section provides, among other things, that whenever the public convenience may require, the commission shall cause union passenger depots to be erected. The appellee railroad companies, in their bill and supplemental bills, alleged that they had each adequate depot facilities, conveniently located for the citizens and the traveling public, all near each other and near the business portion of the town; that there was no location suitable or convenient for the erection of the union passenger depot, except at an unreasonable cost to the railroad companies. It was averred that the order of the commission was unreasonable; also that two of the railroad companies, on account of war conditions, were financially unable to comply with the orders of the commission. A great deal of testimony was taken in the lower court, and it is sufficient to say that there was ample testimony to sustain the decree of the chancellor; in fact, the attorney general in his brief states that "voluminous testimony has been taken in the case, and it is conflicting in its nature as to the necessity, convenience, and advantages of a union depot in the said city."

The contention is made by the attorney general in this case, just as it was made in ...