Rose v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n.

• Decision Date: 29 September 1914
• Citation: 75 W.Va. 1
• Parties: Rose v. Public Service Commission.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

75 W.Va. 1

Rose

v.Public Service Commission.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted September 22, 1914.

Decided September 29, 1914.

1. Carriers Exclusive Privilege Local Transfer Company.

A railway company is not prohibited by sections 7, 8, and 9, chapter 9, Acts 1913, or by any rule or principle of the common law from granting to a local transfer company, in good faith and for public convenience, the exclusive privilege of occupying a portion of its station platform and ground for the purpose of soliciting patronage in the business of transferring through passengers and baggage, arriving on its trains, to the station of another railway company. The rights of a competing transfer company are not thereby violated, (p. 4).

2. Statutes Statute Adopted from Another State Construction.

When a statute has been adopted from another state or country, the courts usually follow the construction which it had received by the courts of the state or country from which it is taken, (p. 4).

Petition by William Rose, doing business as the Rose Transfer Company, filed before the Public Service Commission, complaining of the Chesapeake: & Ohio Railway Company, a corporation, and another, and praying for certain relief. Petition dismissed, and petitioner seeks an order of reversal.

Order refused.

Daugherty & Riggs, for petitioner.

Enslow, Fitzpatrick, Alderson & Baker, A. A. Lilly, Attorney General, and Frank Lively, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.

Williams, Judge:

William Rose, doing business as the Rose Transfer Company, filed his petition before the public service commission complaining against the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, a corporation, and the Union Transfer & Storage Company, also a corporation, alleging that said railway company had violated the laws of the state by extending to the Union Transfer Company the exclusive privilege of accupying a certain portion of its ground adjacent to its station in the city of Huntington for the purpose of soliciting patronage from persons arriving on said railway company's trains, complainant and said Union Transfer Company being competitors in the business of hauling passengers and.baggage from said station to their places of destination in the city, and transferring through passengers and baggage from said station to the station of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company situate in another part of the city. Petitioner avers that the Union Transfer Company enjoys said special and exclusive privilege by virtue of a contract between it and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, which it alleges is in violation of law, and he prays that the contract be concelled and that he be admitted to equal privileges with the Union Transfer Company in the use and enjoyment of the railway company's station platform and grounds.

The cause was regularly heard upon pleadings, agreed statement of facts and argument of counsel, and on the 3rd day of June, 1914, an order was entered denying petitioner relief and dismissing his petition, and he now petitions this Court to review and reverse that order. It appears from the agreed facts that the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company owns in fee a square of ground adjoining its station near the point where passengers alight from its trains, which it has paved; that it has given to the Union Transfer Company the exclusive right to occupy this piece of ground with its

75 W. Va. cabs for the purpose of soliciting passengers and baggage; that petitioner and all other persons have equal right to drive upon this ground for the purpose of delivering passengers and baggage, but that all persons, except the Union Transfer Company, are denied the right of remaining there for the purpose of soliciting patronage; that there are other ways of approach to the station for receiving and delivering passengers and baggage, not so convenient, which all persons are permitted to use. The contract between the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and the Union Transfer Company gives said transfer company the exculsive privilege of transferring through passengers and baggage from the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company's station to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company's station, and the "exclusive privilege of soliciting passengers and baggage on the passenger station platform." The railroad company agrees to pay, the said transfer company twenty-five cents for each adult through passenger, twelve and one-half cents for each half fare passenger transferred from its station 1o the Baltimore & Ohio station, and fifteen cents for each piece of through baggage so transferred. Monthly settlements are provided for. The transfer company agrees to maintain suitable conveyances and have them ready to meet all passenger trains, and properly transfer through passengers and baggage to the Baltimore & Ohio station. It also agrees to indemnify the railway company against all claims that may arise on account of any loss, damage or delay to baggage, or on account of personal injury or death to passengers, while in the possession or under the control of said transfer company. Passenger transfers are to lie evidenced by coupons issued by the railway company and collected by the transfer company from the passenger, and baggage transfers by duplicate transfer baggage way bills of the railway company which shall accompany the baggage upon delivery to the transfer company, and retained by it until the end of each month, when settlement is to be made. The contract is unlimited in duration, and reserves the right to either party to terminate it upon thirty days notice. Whether the railway company profits by the arrangement does not appear, nor do we think that point is material.

Petitioner insists that the agreement is an unlawful discrimination against him and in favor of the Union Transfer & Storage Company, and that it violates sections 7, 8, and 9 of chapter 9, Acts 1913. A casual reading of sections 8 and 9...