Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State

Decision Date20 March 1907
CourtTexas Supreme Court
PartiesMISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. STATE.

Action by the state against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. A judgment in favor of plaintiff was modified by the Court of Civil Appeals (97 S. W. 720), and defendant brings error. Reversed.

T. S. Miller and Jno. T. Craddock, for plaintiff in error. Andrew J. Britton, E. A. Thorp, and Howell & Nabors, for the State.

BROWN, J.

On the 4th day of November, 1905, the state of Texas, by the county attorney of Wood county, instituted this suit in the district court of said county against the plaintiff in error, and on the 21st day of November of that year filed a first amended original petition, in which it was alleged, in substance, that the railroad company, on and after the 14th day of July, 1905, to the time of the filing of the amendment, was the owner of and operated a railroad through the said county of Wood, and had established and maintained in that county stations at Winnsboro, East Winnsboro, Alba, and Golden, at each of which stations the said railroad company during the said time received and discharged passengers from its trains, both in the day and night time. It is alleged that during the said time from the 14th day of July, 1905, to the 21st day of November, 1905, being 18 weeks, the said railroad company failed and neglected to construct, maintain, and keep at either of said stations a water-closet or privy in a reasonably clean and sanitary condition, and failed and neglected to keep separate water-closets for male and female persons at each of the aforesaid stations and depots, either within the passenger depot at said stations or at any reasonable or convenient distance from either of the said depots for the accommodation of its passengers, who were received or discharged from its cars at that place, or for its patrons or employés who had business with the said railroad company at each of the said depots. It is further averred that the railroad company failed and neglected to keep the water-closets and depot grounds adjacent to such water-closets well lighted in the nighttime for at least one hour before the scheduled time for the arrival of its trains and for one hour after the arrival thereof. The state sought to recover of the railroad company the penalty of $100 a week for the failure to construct and maintain the said water-closets as provided by "An act to compel the railroads and railway corporations to erect and maintain water-closets or privies at passenger stations, to regulate the same, to fix penalties and authorize suits therefor, with an emergency clause," approved April 17, 1905, which took effect 90 days after the adjournment of the Legislature. Acts 1905, p. 324, c. 133. The railroad company filed general demurrer, special exceptions, and a general denial. The demurrer and exceptions were overruled by the court, and the case was submitted to the judge, who entered judgment in favor of the state for the sum of $1,800, which judgment the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.

This proceeding was inaugurated for the purpose of enforcing penalties against the railroad company for a violation of the following provision of a statute of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature:

"Section 1. That each railroad and railway corporation operating a line of railway in the state of Texas for the transportation of passengers thereon, shall hereafter be required to construct, maintain and keep in a reasonably clean and sanitary condition, suitable and separate water-closets or privies for both male and female persons at each passenger station on its line of railway, either within its passenger depot or in connection therewith, or within a reasonable and convenient distance therefrom at such station, for the accommodation of its passengers who are received and discharged from its cars thereat, and of its patrons and employés who have business with such railroads and corporations at such stations.

"Sec. 2. That said railroads and corporations are hereby required to keep said water-closets and depot grounds adjacent thereto well lighted at such hours, in the nighttime, as its passengers and patrons at such stations may have occasion to be at the same, either for the purpose of taking passage on its trains or waiting for the arrival thereof, or after leaving the same and for at least one hour both before the schedule time for the arrival of its said trains and after the arrival thereof at said station; provided, that said railroads and corporations shall not be required by the provisions hereof to keep said closets lighted at such stations where the said railroads do not receive and discharge thereat, in the nighttime passengers on and from its cars.

"Sec. 3. Any railroad or railway corporation which fails, neglects or refuses to comply with the provisions of this act shall forfeit and pay to the state of Texas the sum of one hundred dollars for each week it so fails and neglects," etc.

The plaintiff in error challenges the validity of the law, for the reason that it is in contravention of the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • In re Hecht
    • United States
    • Texas Special Court of Review
    • October 20, 2006
    ...implicates the liberty interest of free expression, the Canon must be strictly construed in favor of Petitioner. See Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co., 100 Tex. at 424, 100 S.W. at 767. The commission and the Ohio Board define "endorsing" as meaning "support"; other prominent dictionary definitions and ......
  • Sportatorium, Inc. v. State, 12619.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 12, 1938
    ...614b as too vague, indefinite, and uncertain for enforcement, are the law points that have really troubled us. In Missouri K. & T. R. Co. v. State, 100 Tex. 420, 100 S.W. 766, the test for constitutionality is stated: "A penal statute, such as now before us, must be couched in such explicit......
  • Railroad Commission v. Sterling Oil & Refining Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • February 16, 1949
    ...deliveries of the gas can actually begin. While theoretically the situation differs from that involved in Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. State, 100 Tex. 420, 100 S.W. 766, in that no fine or penalty as such is here imposed, the effect is substantially the same under existing condition......
  • Christy-Dolph v. Gragg
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • June 14, 1932
    ...no way differs from the decisions by the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals of the state of Texas. See M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. State, 100 Tex. 424, 100 S. W. 766; Sogdell v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 66, 193 S. W. 675; Griffin v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 498, 218 S. W. 494; Russell v. ......
  • 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