Railroad Commission of Alabama v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co.

• Citation: 195 Ala. 527,70 So. 645
• Decision Date: 13 January 1916
• Docket Number: 143
• Parties: RAILROAD COMMISSION OF ALABAMA v. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

70 So. 645

195 Ala. 527

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF ALABAMA v. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO.

No. 143

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 13, 1916

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Gaston Gunter, Judge.

Suit by the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company to enjoin orders of the Railroad Commission of Alabama for additional train service. From a decree for complainant, the Commission appeals. Affirmed.

Robert C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Forney Johnston, of Birmingham, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

The original bill in this case sought an injunction against an order of the Railroad Commission of Alabama, docket No. 767 which required an extra train to be run each day over the complainant's road, for local service, between Sulligent and Birmingham, in each direction, which said order bears date of January 16, 1914. The schedule prescribed in said order required a train to leave Birmingham daily at or about 12 o'clock noon, and proceed westward to Sulligent, and another train to leave Sulligent at or about 12 o'clock noon, and proceed eastward to Birmingham, each making all intermediate stops. While the original bill was pending testing the reasonableness of this order, the respondent commission on May 5, 1914, entered another order, bearing docket No. 781, requiring the said St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, and the receivers in charge thereof, to make regular stops of their trains numbered 105 and 106 at Sulligent, Carbon Hill, Cordova, and Dora, Ala., for the receipt and delivery of passengers thereon. Thereupon the complainant filed a supplemental bill seeking similar relief against the said order above numbered 781. The complainant the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, is shown to be in the hands of receivers appointed by the federal court, and they are made parties respondent to the bill.

Upon a submission of the cause for final decree on pleadings and proof, the judge of the city court, sitting in equity, granted the relief prayed for, and from this decree the respondent, Railroad Commission, prosecuted this appeal.

It is first insisted by counsel for appellee that, if both of the orders above referred to, when considered together, put an unnecessary and unreasonable burden upon the complainant, then both orders should fall without regard to reasonableness of either, when considered separately, for the reason that this court has no power to exercise legislative functions, and therefore, as the commission entered the second order without any repeal or limitation upon the first, that this court is without the power to select which of said two orders should be permitted to stand. It is therefore urged that the only course open is to annul the outstanding orders and leave with the commission the question whether or not it will attempt to revive either. The trial judge, in response to this contention, used the following language, which meets our approval:

"It seems to me that the true rule is, without a consideration of the frame of the present bills, that if each order, when considered separately and alone, is valid, but, when considered collectively and together, are oppressive and unreasonable, then both orders must fall, since the court cannot select which shall stand; and, if the first order is valid, but the second order of itself is invalid, then the first order should stand, but the second should fall, and likewise, if the first of itself is invalid, and the second is valid, then I see no reason why the second order should not stand. This conclusion makes it necessary to examine each order separately and in connection with the evidence."

In the opinion of the court below it is also stated that it was admitted by the state that it was unreasonable that both orders should stand, and this statement finds no denial in brief of counsel for the appellant here.

It is recognized in this state, and it is unquestionably a salutary rule, that the order of the Railroad Commission is presumably reasonable, and the court will not overturn its finding unless it clearly appears that such order is unjust and unreasonable. R.R. Com. of Ala. v. Ala. Northern Ry. Co., 182 Ala. 357, 62 So. 749; R.R. Com. of Ala. v. Ala. Great So. Ry. Co., 185 Ala. 354, 64 So. 13, L.R.A.1915D, 98.

As to order No. 767, requiring an additional passenger train, but little is found by way of argument in brief of counsel for appellant. It appears without conflict that the complainant railway company operates three passenger trains each day each way, stopping at all local points, including, of course those stops here indicated. Two of these trains are through trains, running between Birmingham and Memphis. Trains numbered and referred to as 103 and 104, between Birmingham and Memphis, carry sleepers. One of the three trains appears to be entirely local, and operates between Amory, Miss., and Birmingham, including all of these points. The population of the towns here involved, without reference to that of the precinct in which they are located, is stated in this record to be respectively as follows: Sulligent, 619; Carbon Hill, 1,627; Cordova, 1,747; and Dora, 916. The schedule of these three trains each way is given in detail, as well also as that of trains 105 and 106, which do not make these stops. Train 105 runs through Sulligent at 12:30 p.m., and train 921, from Memphis to Birmingham, stops at that station at 12:50 p.m.; this latter train serving Sulligent and all the towns between that point and Birmingham. The order requiring an additional train fixes the schedule for leaving Sulligent at or about noon, and the evidence is without dispute that this local train would be overtaken within a few stations and required to side track for No. 105 to pass, which, of course, taken in connection with the delay of local travel, would reduce the interval between the new train leaving at noon and 921, which leaves at 12:50, so that they would be run practically together, or, at least, somewhat after the fashion of what is called a first and second section, The passenger revenue from these stations is also given; and the evidence deals with many minute details concerning the schedule of these trains and the traffic of the same, as well also as with a comparison with the service of other roads in that section. The evidence is rather voluminous, and a detailed discussion of the same would serve no good purpose, and is considered entirely unnecessary. The addition of this new train, it is shown...