State ex rel. Smart v. Kansas City, Shreveport & Gulf Railway Co

• Decision Date: 06 February 1899
• Docket Number: 13,020
• Citation: 25 So. 126,51 La.Ann. 200
• Parties: STATE EX REL E. E. SMART ET AL. v. KANSAS CITY, SHREVEPORT & GULF RAILWAY CO
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

25 So. 126

51 La.Ann. 200

STATE EX REL E. E. SMART ET AL. v. KANSAS CITY, SHREVEPORT & GULF RAILWAY CO

No. 13,020

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 6, 1899

Argued January 26, 1899

ON APPEAL from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo. Land, J..

J Henry Shepherd, for Relators and Appellants.

T Alexander, for Defendant and Appellee.

OPINION

NICHOLLS C. J.

The plaintiffs in this case represented in their petition to the court that they were residents of the town of Leesville, parish of Vernon, where many of them owned residences and stores; where many of them had been conducting various occupations as merchants, hotel keepers and mechanics; that they owned their several business and residence houses long before the construction by the defendant of its railway line through the parish of Vernon, and through the town of Leesville, the parish seat of Vernon parish. That in consideration of the public benefit to be derived by the town of Leesville, E. E. Smart, one of the plaintiffs, donated to said railroad the right of way through said town, and petitioners were led to believe by the proper officials of said railway that the said town should have a depot, with proper conveyances, and so located as to furnish proper facilities for the people of Leesville. That it was the duty of said corporation to furnish their town with a convenient and suitable depot, sufficient in capacity for the transaction of railroad business, and so located as to be accessible and convenient to the business and residents of said town. That this obligation was incumbent on said railroad company by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Louisiana.

That for a period of six months the said corporation stopped its trains, received freight and discharged same, as well as carried passengers, from a switch located within two hundred and thirty yards of the court house of Vernon parish, about the centre of said town. That access to said stopping point was easy, safe and convenient, to the public and the people generally having business in said town of Leesville, and at the court house of Vernon parish. That on the 29th of January, 1897, the said corporation, through its right of way agent, purchased forty acres of land adjacent to the town, had the same surveyed and platted into town lots, and built a depot thereon one-half mile from the court house; that the said depot is located in a swamp inaccessible to the public, and imposes extra expense on passengers going to and from said town of Leesville to said depot. That it is with extreme difficulty goods are hauled to and from said depot, owing to the almost impassible condition of the road leading from the town to the same, the ground being of marshy character, and quicksands underlying part of the road. That access to said depot to secure freight was difficult and expensive, and the public were greatly inconvenienced thereby; that an additional expense was imposed on the people of Leesville in order to transact business with said railroad company, which was an unnecessary and grievous burden, because said company could furnish safe, convenient, and easy access to the public and people of Leesville by locating a depot in said town and continuing to serve the public as they began. That the said corporation, in total disregard of the Constitution of the State and its charter of incorporation, had engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate in said parish of Vernon, and that the purchase of said forty acres of land was not incidental nor necessary to its business as a common carrier. That said depot was located, not in the interest of the public or for the convenience of its business as a railroad, but for the sole purpose of making large profits on the land purchased; that said company, through its land commissioner, was seeking to secure the removal of the court house, which stands where it has been convenient to the people of Vernon, on high ground, and surrounded by the buildings of the merchants, mechanics and residents of said town, and said commissioner had offered one thousand dollars and one acre of ground for its removal to the centre of the company's tract of land, but a half a mile distant from the present court house, all for the sole purpose of aiding said corporation to carry on its land speculations and make profitable its real estate investment in land, not necessary nor incidental to its business as a common carrier, which it was illegally conducting.

That its agents and employees were actively engaged in circulating petitions to the police jury of Vernon parish to order an election for the removal of the court house one-half mile distant to a low, marshy, thicket, where the corporation was then selling lots by reason of its locating its depot on said tracts; that prior to said location it was an uninhabited tract of forest swamp. That the said acts of the corporation would render valueless a large amount of property in residences and business houses belonging to the relators, and practically compelling them to remove to close proximity to said depot as then located, and solely to advance the illegal and selfish real estate speculation of the officer of said corporation, and that said corporation was so conducting its business near the town of Leesville by locating its depot at a remote distance from said town, and refusing to furnish adequate and sufficient depot facilities for the general public in said town and vicinity as to infringe on the equal rights of individuals and the general well being of the State.

That said acts of said corporation in locating their depot one-half mile from said town, and refusing to furnish a depot for the general public's convenience in said town, although passing immediately through it, was illegal and to the great injury of petitioners, and that for said injury the law had assigned no relief by the ordinary means, and that in order to maintain their rights and that of the public it was necessary that a writ of mandamus issue on relator's behalf, ordering and commanding said corporation to furnish them and the public generally of the town of Leesville, suitable, adequate and accessible depot facilities, at which the public business of said town can be conducted with comfort and with regard to the rights and general convenience of the public, without the oppressive, expensive, and extremely difficult method occasioned by the remote and inconvenient location which was solely in the interest of the sale of town lots, and not in the interest of the public. Their prayer was that the corporation establish a depot in the town of Leesville which would give the people of said town accessible, adequate, and suitable facilities for the transaction of freight and passenger business with the said corporation.

The defendant filed an exception of no cause of action, which the District Court sustained and dismissed plaintiff's suit. They appealed.

In its reasons for judgment the District Court said: "The petition sets forth no contract or agreement binding the defendant to maintain a station in Leesville, but alleges that such is the obligation of the company under the Constitution and laws of the State.

The court has been referred to no law or decision of this State which makes it the duty of a railroad company to establish stations at or near the county seat of the parish, or in every town or village which its line may traverse. It is not alleged that Leesville is an incorporated town, and it may be assumed that it is a village without fixed limits in which the court house of the parish is located.

It is admitted that the station of the defendant corporation is not more than one-half mile from the court house, and the object of this suit is to compel the erection of a depot, side tracks, etc., at a point nearer to the court house, say two hundred and thirty yards distant therefrom.

In State ex rel. New Orleans vs. Railroad Company, 37 An. 589, our Supreme Court held that the writ of mandamus does not lie to compel corporations to perform obligations arising from a contract, and that it can be invoked only to compel the performance of some clear, unequivocal duty imposed by law.

By Act 133, of 1888, it was provided that when a corporation is bound by contract, or otherwise, to any parish or corporation with reference to the paving, grading, repairing, reconstructing or care of any street, highway, bridge, culvert, levee, canal, ditch, or crossing, and shall fail or neglect to perform said contract or obligation, the parish or municipal corporation shall have the right to proceed by mandamus.

In State ex rel. City of New Orleans vs. New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Company, 42 An. 138, our Supreme Court held that Act 133, of 1888, extended the remedy of mandamus to matters and things not hitherto included in its scope, and must be strictly construed.

If there is no law of this State imposing a clear and unequivocal duty on defendant to establish a station in Leesville, the mandamus will not lie, however reprehensible may have been the motive and actions of the corporate authorities."

OPINION.

Though the fact is not directly stated in plaintiffs' petition we understand them to charge that the defendant company after having, during a period of six months, stopped its trains, and received and discharged freight, and received and delivered passengers from a switch located within two hundred and thirty yards of the court house of Vernon parish, about the centre of said town, had illegally and improperly discontinued said service. That it had done so from the selfish...