Northern Pac Ry Co v. Puget Sound Ry Co

Decision Date02 June 1919
Docket NumberNo. 327,327
CitationNorthern Pac Ry Co v. Puget Sound Ry Co, 250 U.S. 332, 39 S.Ct. 474, 63 L.Ed. 1013 (1919)
PartiesNORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. et al. v. PUGET SOUND & W. H. RY. CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Lorenzo B. Da Ponte, of Tacoma, Wash., and C. W. Bunn and Charles Donnelly, both of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Heman H. Field, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice CLARKEdelivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendant in error, Puget Sound & Willapa Harbor Railway Company, hereinafter designated the Willapa Company, a railroad corporation organized under the laws of the state of Washington, in the construction of a new line of railroad in 1914, found it necessary to cross at grade, at two places, tracks which had been constructed in 1890-1892 by the plaintiff in error, Northern Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter designated the Pacific Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin.

In appropriate proceedings, provided for by the state law, the Public Service Commission of the state of Washington granted authority and permission to the Willapa Company to cross the tracks of the Pacific Company at grade at the two designated places.This permission was subject to the condition that suitable interlocking devices, of a type to be agreed upon between the two companies, should be installed at the crossings.The companies agreed upon all of the conditions involved in the crossing of their tracks, excepting as to the cost of installing and maintaining the required interlocking devices and upon due submission of this question to the commission it was decided that the entire expense should be borne by the junior, the Willapa Company.The superior court affirmed this holding by the commission, but on appeal the Supreme Court of the state, in the decision which we are reviewing, reversed the two lower tribunals and ruled that the expense should be divided equally between the two companies.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Washington is based upon the interpretation which it placed upon applicable state statutes enacted in 1913(chapter 3,Laws of Washington 1913, p. 74), and the case is presented to this court on the single assignment of error:

'That the state Supreme Court erred in holding and deciding that chapter 30 of the Laws of Washington of 1913, as construed and applied to the facts of this case, is not repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'

Conceding that the construction placed upon the statestatute by the state Supreme Court will be accepted by this court, the contention of the Pacific Company is that, when that company entered the state of Washington and constructed its line, an act of the Legislature, passed in 1888(Laws 1887-88, p. 63) was in effect, which gave to railway companies formed under the act the right to cross any other railway theretofore constructed, but subject to conditions which the state Supreme Court held, in 1908, in State v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 49 Wash. 78, 94 Pac. 907, required the junior company to pay the entire cost of the crossing, including the installing and maintaining of interlocking devices where necessary; that this constituted a vested right of property in the senior company, and that the later statute of 1913, which the Supreme Court held in this case required it to bear one-half of the cost of installing and maintaining the interlocker, deprived it of its property without due process of law.

It is admitted in argument that the act assailed would be validly applicable to apportioning the cost of crossings of highways and railroads, regardless of the dates of their construction (New York & New England Railroad v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 14 Sup. Ct. 437, 38 L. Ed. 269;Chicago, etc., Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
12 cases
  • Lighting Co v. Village of Upper Sandusky
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1919
    ...impairing of the obligation of its contract with the state or village and is not a taking of its property without due process of law within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition. Northern Pacific Railway Co. et al. v. Puget Sound & Willapa Harbor Railway Co., 250 U. S. 332, 39 Sup. Ct. 474, 63 L. Ed. 1013, and cases Of the contention that if an ordinance passed in 1915 by the village, repealing the ordinance of 1889, were given effect it would result in impairing the obligation of...
  • Richmond v. City Of Richmond
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1926
    ...viaducts to carry highways, newly laid out, over their tracks or to carry their tracks over such high ways.' Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Omaha, 235 U. S. 121, 35 S. Ct. 82, 59 L. Ed. 157; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Puget Sound & Willapa Harbor Ry. Co., 250 U. S. 332, 39 S. Ct. 474, 63 L. Ed. 1013. For although the statement is said to be explained as a matter of state law by the previous decisions in Minnesota, it is made without reference to those decisions or to any local...
  • State ex rel. Alton Railroad v. Pub. Serv. Comm.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1934
    ...v. Public Utility Commissioners. 254 U.S. 394, 41 Sup. Ct. 169, 65 L. Ed. 322: Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Omaha, 235 U.S. 121, 35 Sup. Ct. 82, 59 L. Ed. 157: Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Puget Sound & Willapa Harbor Ry. Co., 250 U.S. 332, 39 Sup. Ct. 474, 63 L. Ed. 1013: State ex rel. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Public Service Comm. (Mo.), 62 S.W. (2d) 1090; State ex rel. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Public Service Comm., 331 Mo. 438, 53S.W. 619; State v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 308 Mo. 374, 272 S.W. 961; Kansas City v. Kansas City Terminal, 25 S.W. (2d) 1064; Ry. Co. v. Omaha, 235 U.S. 121; Ry. Co. v. Puget Sound & Willapa Harbor Ry. Co., 250 U.S. 332; Railroad Co. v. Pub. Util. Commrs., 254 U.S. 394. (6) The financial ability of the appellant to contribute to the four projects which were proposed by the county has no bearing upon this cause and the commission did not err...
  • Nashville St Ry v. Walters
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1935
    ...with another railway line, merely because the first railroad was built before the crossing was made; Detroit, Fort Wayne & Belle Isle Ry. v. Osborn, 189 U.S. 383, 23 S.Ct. 540, 47 L.Ed. 860; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Puget Sound & Willipa Harbor Ry. Co., 250 U.S. 332, 39 S.Ct. 474, 63 L.Ed. 1013; 38 and that the state may, under some circumstances, impose upon a railroad the cost of the grade separation for a new highway. But in every case in which this Court has sustained...
  • Get Started for Free