State ex rel. Transp v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1888
• Citation: 23 Neb. 117,36 N.W. 305
• Parties: STATE EX REL. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION v. FREMONT, E. & M. V. R. CO.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

23 Neb. 117

36 N.W. 305

STATE EX REL. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION

v.FREMONT, E. & M. V. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

January 5, 1888.

Syllabus by the court.

Section 1 of the act to regulate railroads, prevent unjust discriminations, and to provide for a board of transportation, etc., requires all charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of property by railway companies to be reasonable and just, and prohibits every unjust and unreasonable charge, and declares it to be unlawful. Therefore, where the board of transportation finds that the charges of a line of railway are not reasonable and just, and orders a reduction of such rates 33 1/3 per cent. such board cannot enter into a compromise with the railway companies by which the charges within the state shall be in excess of the rates found to be reasonable and just in consideration of certain reductions in rates on in and out freight to and from Chicago and other common points.

It is the duty of the board to fix freight rates and charges within the state at such sum as shall be reasonable and just, and make findings of the fact. Its findings are prima facie evidence of the truth of the same, but when issue is taken upon them in court the question of what are reasonable and just charges must be determined like other questions of fact.

Mandamus.

The state board of transportation filed their petition, praying for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, the Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad Company, to comply with an order made by said board reducing freight rates within the state.O. P. Mason, William Leese, and Attorney General, for relator.

J. B. Hawley and T. M. Marquett, for respondents.

MAXWELL, C. J.

In September, 1887, the board of transportation required the respondent to reduce its freight rates within the state 33 1/3 per cent. The respondent neglected to comply with the order, whereupon the board filed a petition in this court setting forth the facts, and praying for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to comply with the order. The respondent demurred to the petition, and, after full argument, the demurrer was overruled, and leave given to answer. The respondent now files an answer (omitting formal parts) as follows:

“Defendant admits that on the first day of July, A. D. 1887, the said officers, composing said board so created, entered upon their duties as such board, and ever since have been and now are acting as such board of transportation. Defendant admits that, under the provisions of said act, said board was clothed with certain powers, and were given general supervision of all railroads operated by steam in this state, and it was made the duty of said board to inquire into any neglect of duty or violation of any of the laws of this state, and to carefully investigate any complaint made in writing and under oath, concerning any unjust discriminations against any person, firm, corporation, or locality, either in rates, facilities furnished, or otherwise; admits that the Lincoln Board of Trade and Freight Bureau filed a complaint in writing and under oath as set forth in the relator's petition embodied in said writ herein, and for the particulars thereof the defendant refers to a copy of said petition made a part of said writ; admits that such proceedings were had on said complaint that on the ______ day of ______, A. D. 1887, an answer was filed and issue joined, and a hearing was had of the matters complained of, and that a finding of facts was made by said board of transportation on the twenty-fourth day of September, 1887, that the charges for the services rendered and to be rendered by the respondent were unjust and unreasonable, and prohibited by law; that said finding of facts informed said defendant of the extent of such alleged unjust charges, and also said board required said defendant to comply with its finding and order from and after the first day of October, 1887; admits that Exhibit A filed with the relator's petition herein contains a copy of all the proceedings had and done by said board of transportation in the premises up to the time of the filing of the petition herein, and including the said complaint filed before said board of transportation, the answer of defendant, and the findings of fact, and the said order of said board of transportation, as aforesaid; admits that it did not comply with said order of said board of transportation within the time limited by said order, because the defendant really and in good faith believed that the charges made by the defendant, and all of them, for the transportation, handling, storage, and receiving and delivering of freight were reasonable and just, and that said board of transportation had no legal power or authority, upon the said petition filed before it or otherwise, to require and order the defendant to reduce its rates and charges for such service. Still it was true at the time said order was made, and before and after the making thereof, the defendant was desirous of so adjusting its rates and charges for the transportation of property, and for the receiving, delivery, storage, and handling thereof, as to receive the concurrence, support, and approval of said board of transportation; that the proper officers and agents of the defendant had often expressed to the said board of transportation, and the members thereof, such desire and wish upon the part of the defendant; that the members of said board of transportation had, from time to time, expressed the wish to the officers representing the defendant, and other railroad companies in this state, that an adjustment of the freight tariffs and charges might be made on the various railroads in the state that should reduce the then existing rates and charges, and that should be uniform as applied to the different lines of road in the state.

That for the purpose of consummating, if possible, such an object, and for the purpose of securing, if possible, harmony of action between the board of transportation and the various railroad companies of this state, a meeting was held by said board of transportation at their rooms in the city of Lincoln on the thirteenth day of October, A. D. 1887, at which the general manager, general freight agent, and general attorney of the defendant were present and participated. There were also present and participating, officers of the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company, of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and the representatives of other railroads of this state. The proceedings of such board of transportation on the said day were duly entered of record in the records of said board, and a copy thereof is hereto attached marked ‘Exhibit B,’ and made a part of this answer; that on the fourteenth day of October, A. D. 1887, a meeting of said board of transportation was held at their rooms in the city of Lincoln, at which the same representatives of railroads were present as on the previous day. The action and proceedings of said board of transportion, on said last-named day, were duly entered of record by said board of transportation in the records of said board, and a copy of said proceedings is hereto attached, marked ‘Exhibit C’ and made a part of this answer; that on the twenty-seventh day of October, A. D. 1887, at a meeting of said board of transportation held at their...