Public Service Commission v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.

Decision Date20 November 1923
Docket NumberNo. 23705.,23705.
Citation301 Mo. 157,256 S.W. 226
PartiesPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert W. Hall, Judge.

Mandamus by the Public Service Commission of Missouri against the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

L. E. Breuer, General Counsel, of Rolla, and James D. Lindsay, Asst. Counsel, of Jefferson City, for appellant.

Frank H. Farris, of Rolla (W. F. Evans and E. T. Miller, both of St. Louis, of counsel), for respondent.

RAGLAND, J.

On the 14th day of April, 1921, the Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, after notice and hearing, promulgated an order, to become effective July 5, 1921

"That no common carrier operating in the state of Missouri shall discontinue the operation of any passenger train, * * * where such operation or service is performed in the state of Missouri, without securing the permission of this Commission for such change."

Thereafter, on December 13, 1921, the respondent, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, without first having obtained the consent of the Commission, and without having made any application therefor, notified the Commission that on December 18, 1921, it would discontinue certain local passenger trains, which for a number of years it had been operating between the city of St. Louis and the town of Newburg and between Springfield and Monett, all within the state of Missouri. Thereupon the Commission commenced this action in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, wherein it seeks by mandamus to compel respondent

"to continue to operate as now and heretofore lately operated its said local passenger trains, * * * until and unless permission for the discontinuance of said trains be duly obtained by order of the Commission."

The gravamen of the action, as disclosed by the petition, is the threatened violation by respondent of the Commission's order with respect to the discontinuance of passenger trains. The cause comes here on the Commission's appeal from the judgment of the circuit court, denying it relief on the ground that the order just referred to is invalid.

In its return to the alternative writ, respondent asserts the invalidity of the commission's order on a number of grounds; among others, that—

The "order is a general order, which if valid would have the force and effect of law; the making of which is not within relator's jurisdiction."

With respect to this, the position of the Commission is tersely set forth by its general counsel in his brief as follows:

"The order here involved is a regulation as to future conduct, and legislative in its nature. It is a public policy, formulated and announced, authorized by virtue of the general and special powers granted to the Commission. It is practical, and is necessary in the orderly performance by the Commission of its duty to supervise the performance of this essential duty of the carriers.

"It is an aid in procuring a speedy and authoritative determination of a question important alike to the carrier and its patrons.

"It is designed to prevent the carrier from unauthorized action in disregard of the convenience of the public, and, equally so, to relieve, in an orderly way, the carrier from a service which may be, by change of conditions, burdensome out of proportion to its benefits.

"The carrier cannot conclusively determine these questions for itself, without a hearing of the interests of the public.

"The sudden, unexplained discontinuance of a passenger train, long in voluntary operation, upon regular schedule for the service and convenience of the public, is a decision by one of the parties in interest without a hearing of the other party."

It thus appears that the principal question presented for determination is whether the Commission is empowered to make general orders of the character of the one involved here, operative in the future, and applicable alike to all common carriers by rail. There is little doubt but that the Legislature could have delegated authority to the Commission to make such a rule and regulation had it seen fit to do so. State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 47 South. 969, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 639; 6 R. C. L. 177. The question is, Did it?

The Commission is vested with such powers, and only such, as are conferred upon it by the Public Service Commission Law. Chapter 95, R. S. 1919. By that law it is vested with the powers therein expressly conferred and all others necessary and proper to enable it to carry out fully and effectually all the purposes of the act. Section 10412, R. S. 1919. Looking to those provisions of the statute dealing solely with the subject of the investiture of jurisdiction with respect to railroads, we find:

"The jurisdiction, supervision, powers and duties of the Public Service Commission herein created and established shall extend under this chapter: * * * To all railroads within this state, * * * and to the person or corporation owning, leasing, operating or controlling the same." Section 10425, R. S. 1919.

"The Commission shall have the general supervision of all common carriers, railroads * * * railroad corporations, * * * and shall have power to and shall examine the same and keep informed as to their general condition, their capitalization, their franchises and the manner in which their lines and property, owned, leased, controlled or operated are managed, conducted and operated, not only with respect to the adequacy, security and accommodation afforded by their service, but also with respect to their compliance with all the provisions of law, orders and decisions of the Commission and charter requirements. * * *" Section 10452.

These general provisions are followed by more specific ones prescribing the methods and procedure to be followed in the exercise of the power of supervision so conferred. From these it appears that the power may be exercised, broadly speaking, in two ways— first, through general orders applicable to all railroad carriers alike, and, second, through orders made in specific cases, based on findings of fact therein, after notice and hearing. With reference to the first, the statute expressly authorizes the Commission by general rules and regulations—(1) to prescribe the form of schedules showing the rates, fares, and charges for the transportation of passengers and property within this state, and to modify the requirements of section 10439 in respect to the publishing, posting, and filing of such schedules, applicable to special or peculiar circumstances or conditions (section 10438); (2) to prescribe the form of annual and periodic reports to be made by common carriers and the character of information to be contained therein (section 10453); (3) to prescribe the forms of account, records and memoranda to be kept by railroad corporations (section 10461); (4) to regulate the furnishing and distribution of freight cars to shippers, the switching of the same for the loading and unloading thereof, the demurrage charges in respect thereto, and the weighing of cars and property offered for shipment or transported by any common carrier (section 10447, subd. 2); (5) to provide the time within which express packages will be received, gathered, transported, and delivered at destination, and the limits within which express packages shall be gathered and distributed without extra charge (section 10447, subd. 3); and (6) to provide for the transporting and moving of the car, device, or facility used for testing track scales (section 10448). The Commission is also authorized to prescribe, within defined limits, rules and regulations with respect to the issuance of stocks and bonds, notes and other evidences of indebtedness of railroad corporations and common carriers (section 10463). The statute is voluminous, and many of its provisions are not entirely free from ambiguity, but on its face the subject-matters above enumerated appear to be the only ones with respect to which it expressly authorizes the Commission to make general rules and regulations with reference to common carriers. Such rules, if reasonable and conformable to the general purposes of the statute, lie within the discretion of the Commission. All other orders expressly authorized must be made in conformity with a definite course of procedure.

The procedure above referred to consists of an investigation by the Commission, of its own motion or upon complaint, in which, after due notice to the common carriers to be affected thereby, a hearing is had and a finding of facts is made on the evidence adduced thereat. Such finding constitutes the sole basis of any order that may be made as a result of the investigation. Under the statute these investigations, generally speaking, deal with the correlative subjects of service and charges.

"The Commission may, * * * make inquiry, * * * as to any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any common carrier, * * * [alleged to be] in violation of any provision of law or in violation of any order or decision of the Commission." Section 10455.

If, after a hearing, it finds—

"That the regulations, practices, * * * or service of any such common carrier, * * * in respect to transportation of persons or property * * * are unjust, unreasonable, * * * improper or inadequate, [it] shall determine the just, reasonable, * * * adequate and proper regulations, practices, * * * and service * * * to be observed and * * * used * * * and prescribe the same by order." Section 10456, subd. 2.

If it is of the opinion, after a hearing—

"that the rates, fares or charges demanded, * * * charged or collected by any common carrier, * * * or that the regulations or practices of such common carrier, * * * affecting such rates are unjust, unreasonable, unjustly discriminatory or unduly preferential, * * * the Commission...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Codd v. McGoldrick Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 7, 1928
    ...... Great Southern R. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Com., . 210 Ala. 151, P. U. R. 1924A, 477, 97 So. ... courts, though the utilities commission may, and at times. must, in the orderly discharge of its ......
  • Public Service Commission of Missouri v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 20, 1923
  • State ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Public Service Com'n of Missouri
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 17, 1935
    ...... Public Service Commission Supreme Court of Missouri April 17, 1935 . .           Appeal. from Cole Circuit ......
  • Soars v. Soars-Lovelace, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 4, 1940
    ...... Workmen's Compensation Commission for the death of. Charles A. Soars. This [346 Mo. 714] ... construed to mean every person in the service of any. employer, as defined in this chapter, under any ...Jur. 960-965, secs. 242-43; Public Service Comm. v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 301 Mo. 157, 256 ......
  • 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