Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 7744
| Decision Date | 23 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 7744,7744 |
| Citation | 95 N.W.2d 582 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
| Parties | NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, and Northern Pacific Transport Co., a corporation, Appellants and Respondents, v. Anson J. ANDERSON, Ernest D. Nelson and Martin Vaaler, as members of the Public Service Commission of the State of North Dakota; A. L. Ford and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Dale Langford and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen; James McDonald and the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks; William Hanlon; O. O. Lundby; Farmers Union Elevator Company of Minnewaukan, Minnewaukan Commercial Club; Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association; City of Sykeston; Lunby Grain and Fuel Company; Equity Cooperative Elevator Company of Sheyenne, North Dakota; Maier Coach Lines; Northland Greyhound Lines, a corporation; Midwest Motor Express, Inc., a corporation; Dakota Transfer and Storage Company, a corporation; Northwest Dispatch, Inc., a corporation; North Dakota Motor Carriers Association; and Chamber of Commerce, Fargo, North Dakota, Respondents and Appellants. |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A review, by the district court upon appeals from an administrative agency, of the same issues and the same facts which were before, and were considered by, the agency in making the decisions from which the appeals were taken is a proper exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
2. Section 49-1404, NDRC 1943, does not require a daily mixed train minimum service on branch lines of railroads in this state.
3. Upon an appeal to the district court from a decision of an administrative agency, a review of the facts is limited to a consideration of whether the evidence sustains the agency's findings of fact and whether its conclusions and decision are supported by its findings of fact.
4. For reasons stated in the opinion it is held: That material findings of fact of the Public Service Commission in these cases are not sustained by the evidence and that proper findings would not sustain the Commission's conclusion.
Leslie R. Burgum, Atty. Gen., and Gerald G. Glaser, Commerce Counsel, Bismarck, for appellant Public Service Commission.
Van Osdel & Foss, Fargo, for appellants Dakota Transfer & Storage Co., Northwest Dispatch, Inc., Northland Greyhound Lines, Maier Coach Lines.
Gallagher & Paul, Mandan, for appellants, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Conmy & Conmy, Fargo, and Frank S. Farrell, St. Paul, Minn., for appellants and respondents, Northern Pac. R. Co., and Northern Pac. Transport Co.
These appeals are from a judgment of the District Court of Foster County reversing three orders of the Public Service Commission. Two orders denied an application of the Northern Pacific Railway Company to curtail certain branch line service in this state and the third order denied the application of the Northern Pacific Transport Company, a subsidiary of the railway corporation, to substitute a truck-bus service over the highways for the curtailed railway service.
At the time of the filing of the railway and transport company applications the railway provided daily except Sunday, mixed passenger and freight train service on its branch line between Carrington and Turtle Lake, it provided identical service on its branch line between Oberon and Esmond. Between Oberon and Leeds and between Jamestown and Oberon it provided daily passenger and freight service. In its application it proposed, in lieu of the above service, to substitute a freight train running between Jamestown and Turtle Lake with a side trip to New Rockford, leaving Jamestown on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and returning via the same route on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays; it also proposed to operate a freight train between Jamestown and Esmond with a side trip to Leeds, leaving Jamestown Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays and returning on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
This proposal would thus provide freight train service each way six days a week between Jamestown, Carrington and New Rockford, and tri-weekly freight service between Carrington and Turtle Lake and between New Rockford, Oberon, Leeds and Esmond. The railway company also proposed to furnish additional service, as seasonal demands required.
In the application of the Northern Transport Company, which was filed concurrently with that of the railway company, the transport company asked authority to transport general commodities and express between Jamestown and Carrington, passengers, express, milk and cream and general commodities between Carrington and Turtle Lake and between Carrington and Esmond, by a truck-bus service to operate daily, except Sunday on a regularly scheduled service upon all routes.
It was clearly the intent of the applicants that the two applications should be considered together and that the service proposed by the transport company should be considered as a substitute for the service which the railway proposed to curtail. The Public Service Commission, however, refused to consider the applications together. It filed the railway company's application as three separate cases (5328, 5329 and 5340), one for each segment of the interlocking branch lines. It filed the transport company's application as case M-968. It heard and decided the railway company's application in all three cases adversely to the company. The railway company appealed to the district court from the orders denying its application in cases 5328, 5329 and 5340. The Public Service Commission withheld decision in the transport case M-968. Approximately one year after the submission of the latter case, the Northern Pacific Transport Company instituted proceedings in the District Court of Burleigh County for a writ of mandamus, directed to and ordering the Public Service Commission to decide the transport case. The district court granted the writ and this court affirmed the decision of the district court on appeal. State ex rel. Northern Pacific Transport Company v. Public Service Commission, N.D., 82 N.W.2d 597. In the proceeding for the writ of mandamus, it was the contention of the railway company and the transport company that the applications for curtailment of railway service and the substitution of truck-bus service were so interrelated that it was necessary that the appeal from the orders of the Public Service Commission in all cases be heard together. Both applicants desired either that both applications be granted or that both be denied. The Public Service Commission contended that it could not make a decision in the transport case until after the railway case had been decided on appeal. It was asserted that any other procedure might endanger or seriously impair the freight and passenger service to the affected communities. It was apparent that the Public Service Commission felt that if its orders in the railway case were affirmed, no additional service would be needed, but that if its orders were reversed some substituted service would be essential. In this case we said (at page 602):
Conformable to the writ of mandamus issued in the above case, the Public Service Commission decided the case of the Northern Transport Company. It denied the application for truck-bus service and the transport company appealed to the district court. The appeals of the railway company and the transport company were heard together by the district court and, as a result of the appeals, judgment was rendered reversing the orders of the Public Service Commission. The instant appeals are from this judgment. In addition to the appeal of the Public Service Commission, there is an appeal in all of the cases by the railway brotherhoods and an appeal in transport company's case by motor carriers.
The first issue raised by appellants on this appeal arises upon their assertion that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising original jurisdiction upon the appeals to the district court. It is contended that in considering together appeals from cases which had been considered separately by the Public Service Commission, the district court exercised original jurisdiction. In the brief of the Public Service Commission it is stated, 'The District Court should have directed that the proceedings be sent back to the Commission and allow it to consider the applications together, instead of the court deciding to do so on its own initiative and without giving the Commission an opportunity to do so.'
The record shows that the applications in all of these cases were filed at the same time; that they were all noticed for hearing at the same time and place; that the Commission had before it the evidence in support of all of the applications at the time it made its decision in the railway cases; that it withheld decision in the transport case because it considered that its final decision in this case would depend upon whether its decisions in the railway cases were sustained upon appeal; that when it finally decided the transport case, 'its decision was largely, although not entirely predicated on the fact that the Commission had already rejected N. P.'s proposal to curtail freight service' and the findings of fact in the railway cases refer to the pending application in the transport case. It is evident therefore that in considering all of the cases together upon appeal, the district court did not consider any issues or any facts which were not before the commission at the time it considered ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eklund Bros. Transport, Inc. v. Thompson
...evidence and whether its decision is in accordance with the law. Burkhardt v. State, 78 N.D. 818, 53 N.W.2d 394; Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Anderson (N.D.), 95 N.W.2d 582. 2. On an appeal to the Supreme Court, it becomes necessary for us to determine whether the findings of fact made b......