State ex rel. Bd. of R.R. Com'rs v. Holdcroft, 38674.

• Decision Date: 28 September 1928
• Docket Number: No. 38674.,38674.
• Citation: 207 Iowa 564,221 N.W. 191
• Parties: STATE EX REL. BOARD OF RAILROAD COM'RS v. HOLDCROFT ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

207 Iowa 564

221 N.W. 191

STATE EX REL. BOARD OF RAILROAD COM'RS

v.HOLDCROFT ET AL.

No. 38674.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Sept. 28, 1928.

Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; C. C. Hamilton, Judge.

Suit in equity, brought by the state of Iowa, upon the relation of the board of railroad commissioners, against the defendant, Holdcroft, to enforce the orders and decrees of said railroad commission and to enjoin the defendant from unlawfully using the highway as a motor carrier for public service, in violation of the orders of such commission. The answer of the defendant was in the nature of a demurrer and challenged the right of the state to maintain a suit in equity to enjoin the commission of a criminal offense. No dispute of fact is presented. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, the trial court sustained the defendant's action to dismiss the petition, and judgment was entered accordingly. The plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.Dwight Lewis, Stephen Robinson and Maxwell O'Brien, all of Des Moines, and O. T. Naglestad and A. D. Clem, both of Sioux City, for appellant.

Griffin, Griffin & Griffin, of Sioux City, and A. L. Calderhead, of Sloan, for appellees.

EVANS, J.

It appears from the record that the defendant Holdcroft, on and prior to May, 1925, and ever since, was, and is, engaged in rendering public service as a motor carrier upon the public highway between Sioux City and the town of Sloan; that in May, 1925, he filed an application with the commission for a certificate as provided by chapter 5, 41 G. A.; that upon hearing such application was denied; that in August, 1925, he presented a second application to like effect, and this was denied; that said defendant has at all times since disregarded the order of the commission and has continued his public service as a motor carrier upon said highways at all times, in violation of the statute. The defense was predicated upon the broad ground that the acts charged against the defendant were mere violations of the statute and not of the order of the commission; that they were defined by the statute as misdemeanors and punishable as such; that in the absence of an express statute authorizing the suit, the state could not maintain a suit in equity to restrain the commission of a crime; that there is no express statute which authorizes a suit in equity for such purpose. Such contention of the defendant was sustained by the ruling of the court.

Jurisdiction is conferred upon the railroad commission to regulate and control motor carriers in the use of public highways by chapter 5, Acts of 41 G. A. Section 4 of such chapter makes it unlawful for “any motor carrier to operate or furnish public service within this state without first having obtained from the commission a certificate,” etc. Section 18 of the same chapter fixes a punishment for the violation thereof as a misdemeanor.

Section 7874, Code 1924, provides as follows:

“ General Jurisdiction.--The board shall have general supervision of all railroads in the state, express companies, car companies, sleeping car companies, freight and freight line companies, interurban railway companies, motor carriers, and any common carrier engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by railroads, except street railroads, and also all lines for the transmission, sale, and distribution of electrical current for light, heat, or power, except in cities and towns. It shall investigate any alleged neglect or violation of law by any such common carrier, its agents, officers, or employees.”

We shall have occasion to consider only the question whether there is statutory authority for the maintenance of this suit in equity. The argument for appellee is predicated wholly upon the theory that there is no such statutory authority.

Section 7883, Code 1924, provides as follows:

“ Jurisdiction of Courts to Enforce Order.--The district courts of this state shall have jurisdiction to enforce, by proper decrees, injunctions, and orders, the rulings, orders and regulations affecting public rights, made by the board as authorized by law for the direction and observance of railroads in this state. The proceedings therefor shall be by...