Nebraska Telephone Company v. State ex rel. Yeiser

• Decision Date: 23 June 1898
• Docket Number: 9615
• Citation: 76 N.W. 171,55 Neb. 627
• Parties: NEBRASKA TELEPHONE COMPANY v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. JOHN O. YEISER
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

76 N.W. 171

55 Neb. 627

NEBRASKA TELEPHONE COMPANY v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. JOHN O. YEISER

No. 9615

Supreme Court of Nebraska

June 23, 1898

ERROR from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before SCOTT, J. Reversed.

Judgment reversed and proceeding dismissed.

Charles Offutt and W. W. Morsman, for plaintiff in error:

The alternative writ contained no averment that the relator had applied to the board of transportation and exhausted the remedy there. The remedy by mandamus cannot be invoked where relator has another remedy. (State v. Fremont, E. & M. V R. Co., 22 Neb. 313; State v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R Co., 23 Neb. 117; State v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O R. Co., 19 Neb. 482; State v. Republican Valley R. Co., 17 Neb. 647; Northern P. R. Co. v. Washington Territory, 142 U.S. 492.)

The relator has no clear, legal right to demand, nor is the respondent under any duty, specially enjoined by law, that its rates be fixed at a sum which will produce no more than a "fair, reasonable, and just dividend" to its stockholders. (State v. City of Omaha, 14 Neb. 265; State v. Nelson, 21 Neb. 572; State v. Cook, 43 Neb. 318; State v. Home Street R. Co., 43 Neb. 830; State v. Merrell, 43 Neb. 575; Laflin v. State, 49 Neb. 614; Stone v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 116 U.S. 307; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 680; Chicago, M. & S. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418; Reagan v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 395; Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339; Steenerson v. Great Northern R. Co., 72 N.W. 713 [Minn.]; Canada S. R. Co. v. International Bridge Co., 8 L. R. App. 723; Northern P. R. Co. v. Washington Territory, 142 U.S. 492; People v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 104 N.Y. 58.)

The alternative writ contained no averment of facts showing that the service sought to be coerced was a duty specially enjoined by law. The peremptory writ should not have been allowed. (Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. [U.S.] 456; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U.S. 156; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113; Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 94 U.S. 164; Chicago, M. & S. P. R. Co. v. Ackley, 94 U.S. 179; Winona & S. P. R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U.S. 181; Stone v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 116 U.S. 307; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 680; Chicago, M. & S. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418; Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339; Budd v. New York, 143 U.S. 517; State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 38 Minn. 298; Foreman v. Commissioners, 67 N.W. 207 [Minn.]; State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474; State v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co., 22 Neb. 313; State v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co., 23 Neb. 117.)

The averments of discrimination are immaterial. (Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Call Publishing Co., 44 Neb. 326.)

John O. Yeiser, contra:

Corporations or natural persons engaged as (1) common carriers, (2) as public monopolies, or (3) in a business in which the public has an interest are subject to regulation and control by the state. (People v. Budd, 117 N.Y. 19; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 680; Wabash, S. L. & P. R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 568; Budd v. New York, 143 U.S. 537; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 455; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 217; Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 110 U.S. 347; Brass v. Stoeser, 153 U.S. 403; Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Telegraph Co., 66 Md. 399; Frederick v. Goshon, 30 Md. 446; State v. Nebraska Telephone Co., 17 Neb. 126; Haugen v. Albina Light & Water Co., 21 Ore. 418; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113.)

Telephone companies are subject to regulation by reason of the fact of their being engaged in a business partaking of all three of the elements or principles which permit of the regulation of a business by the state. (Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N.Y. 271; Stamford v. Pawlett, 1 Cromp. & Jerv. [Eng.] 57; Gard v. Callard, 6 M. & S. [Eng.] 69; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 11; State v. Nebraska Telephone Co., 17 Neb. 126; Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 258; State v. Delaware & Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone Co., 47 F. 637; Ex parte State, 52 Ala. 231; St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Ass'n, 60 Ark. 325; Ex parte Wall, 48 Cal. 279; Ewing v. Oroville Mining Co., 56 Cal. 649; Spinney v. Griffith, 98 Cal. 149; Green v. Aker, 11 Ind. 223; McCollom v. Pipe, 7 Kan. 122; St. Joseph Board of Public Schools v. Patten, 62 Mo. 444; Jerman v. Benton, 79 Mo. 148; Fusz v. Spaunhorst, 67 Mo. 256; Price v. Smith, 24 S.E. 274 [Va.]; Supervisors v. Stout, 9 W.Va. 703; State v. Nebraska Telephone Co., 17 Neb. 126; Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 257; City of St. Louis v. Bell Telephone Co., 96 Mo. 623; Central Union Telegraph Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1; Delaware & Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. State, 50 F. 678; Central Union Telephone Co. v. State, 118 Ind. 194; People v. Budd, 117 N.Y. 22; Gillis v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 61 Vt. 465; Bell Telephone Co. v. Commonwealth, 3 A. 825 [Pa.].)

Although such business is and has been usually regulated by the legislature, nevertheless, in the absence of legislation, it has been from time immemorial, and is now, the practice and custom to regulate such business by the judiciary. (Chicago, M. & S. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 458; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 133; State v. Republican V. R. Co., 17 Neb. 647; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 687; Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N.Y. 271; Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 10 Colo. 582; Attorney General v. Chicago & N. R. Co., 35 Wis. 588; Stern v. Metropolitan Telephone & Telegraph Co., 46 N.Y.S. 110; Menacho v. Ward, 27 F. 533; Stone v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 116 U.S. 331; Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 F. 527; Camblos v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 4 Brewst. [Pa.] 563; People v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 130 Ill. 181; 8 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 916; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U.S. 526; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 11; Shepard v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co., 6 Wis. 538; Stamford v. Pawlett, 1 Cromp. & Jerv. [Eng.] 81.)

A reasonable compensation was all that could be exacted by common carriers at common law. (Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 10 Colo. 589; Steenerson v. Great N. R. Co., 72 N.W. 713 [Minn.]; Killmer v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 100 N.Y. 395; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 11; Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N.Y. 271; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U.S. 531; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113; Haughen v. Albina Light & Water Co., 21 Ore. 411.)

Relator has no other speedy and adequate remedy at law; but a new remedy being enacted without repealing the common law, the remedy is considered cumulative and a party may elect. (State v. Tryon, 39 Conn. 185; Ex parte Frank, 52 Cal. 610; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U.S. 526; State v. Bethea, 43 Neb. 451; Gooch v. Stephenson, 13 Me. 371; Candee v. Hayward, 37 N.Y. 653; Crittenden v. Wilson, 5 Cow. [N. Y.] 165.)

The alleged duty of a common carrier is one specially enjoined by law, and may be enforced by mandamus. (State v. Nebraska Telephone Co., 17 Neb. 136; State v. Republican V. R. Co., 17 Neb. 656; State v. Joplin Water Works, 52 Mo.App. 319; Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Telegraph Co., 66 Md. 400; Central Union Telephone Co. v. State, 118 Ind. 194; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. People, 56 Ill. 367; State v. Delaware & Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone Co., 47 F. 633; Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 F. 527; People v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 130 Ill. 181; Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 10 Colo. 582; Haughen v. Albina Light & Water Co., 21 Ore. 423; People v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 28 Hun [N. Y.] 543; Stamford v. Pawlett, 1 Cromp. & Jerv. [Eng.] 81; Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. 439; Railroad Commissioners v. Portland & O. C. R. Co., 63 Me. 279.)

OPINION

The opinion contains a statement of the case.

RAGAN, C.

The Nebraska Telephone Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state, having its principal office and place of business in the city of Omaha, and owns and operates a telephone plant in that city. John O. Yeiser is by profession a lawyer and a citizen of said city of Omaha. Yeiser desired a telephone placed in his law office for his own use and requested the telephone company to furnish him an instrument properly connected, and afford him telephonic service. The telephone company refused to comply with this request unless Yeiser would pay it for such instrument and service the sum of $ 5 per month in advance. Yeiser claimed that this sum was an unreasonable and exorbitant charge, refused to pay the same, but tendered the telephone company $ 9 as compensation for the service required of it for three months and demanded that it supply him with the telephone and telephonic service for that length of time. This demand was refused and Yeiser thereupon applied to the district court for, and obtained, a peremptory writ of mandamus directed to the telephone company commanding it to furnish Yeiser the telephone and telephonic service required by him for three months for the sum of $ 9. The telephone company has brought this judgment here for review.

1. Section 1, article 8, chapter 72, Compiled Statutes, provides that all charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered by the common carriers of the state shall be reasonable and just, and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited and declared to be unlawful. By section 11 of said article and chapter certain state officers are constituted a board of transportation, and section 12 of said article and chapter defines the powers and duties of said board of transportation with reference to the common carriers of the state. Construing this statute this court held in State v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co. 22 Neb. 313, 35 N.W. 118,...