State Pub. Utilities Comm'n ex rel. Wabash R. Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 10477.,10477. |
| Citation | 113 N.E. 162,274 Ill. 36 |
| Parties | STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ex rel. WABASH R. CO. et al. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; F. W. Burton, Judge.
Proceedings before the State Public Utilities Commission, on the relation of Wabash Railroad Company, to compel the construction and maintenance of a new interlocking device at a railroad crossing. From a judgment of the Circuit Court, affirming the order of the Utilities Commission, the Illinois Central Railroad Company appeals. Reversed.John G. Drennan, of Chicago (Graham & Graham, of Springfield, and Blewett Lee and W. S. Horton, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, of Chicago (Silas H. Strawn, and George A. Kelly, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee Chicago & A. R. Co.
In 1891 the tracks of the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, and the Wabash Railroad Company crossed each other adjoining Pontiac, at a place then known as Paducah Junction. The Chicago & Alton Railroad Company petitioned the Railroad and Warehouse Commission to compel the other companies to join in an interlocking device at the crossing. The commission on December 10, 1891, after a hearing of the different companies, ordered an interlocking plant constructed consisting of 36 working levers operated by manual power, and ordered that each of the three companiesshould pay one-third of the original cost of construction and of the expense of future maintenance and operation. The interlocking plant was constructed in compliance with the order, and was completed and put in operation in the early part of 1892, and continued in operation and protecting the crossings of the three roads more than 23 years. In 1905 the Bloomington, Pontiac & Joliet Electric Railway Company desired to cross the tracks of the Wabash and Central Companies with its interurban railway, and proceedings were had before the commission which terminated in an order on April 11, 1905, providing that the Central and Wabash Companies should raise their tracks a few feet and the electric railway should go under them by means of a subway. It was ordered, however, that for a period of 90 days the electric company should, without expense to or liability on the part of the other companies, have a right to install temporary crossings over their tracks at grade, but the temporary crossings should be removed within 90 days, and if not so removed the Central Company and Wabash Company might, upon 24 hours' notice to the electric company, tear up and remove the same, unless in the meantime the commission should make an order to the contrary. The electric company was required to furnish, install, and maintain the temporary crossings, and crossing frogs, switches, and appurtenances, with proper derailing devices. It turned out that the order for the subway could not be carried out on account of the lack of drainage, as the subway track would frequently be covered with water, but no order was made by the commission respecting the temporary crossings, and the electric company continued to use them by sufferance of the Wabash and Central Companies.
In 1909 the electric company applied to the commission for a modification of the order of 1905 and for a permanent grade crossing, and that the commission should prescribe the place where and the manner in which the track of the electric companyshould cross the other tracks and the conditions upon which the electric company should enter into the interlocking plant. The Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, which maintained and operated the interlocking device, then became a party to the proceeding. On October 20 1909, the commission set aside the order of April 11, 1905, and made an order that the electric company should have a right to cross at grade the main track and side track of the Central Company and the main track and Y track of the Wabash Company, after having secured the necessary right of way, as provided by law. The order specified the point of crossing as indicated on a plan in the office of the commission, and provided that the crossing should be interlocked in connection with the other tracks; that the electric company should make, at its sole expense, such changes and additions to the interlocking system as should be satisfactory to the commission and install and maintain a proper trolley guard; and that it should be charged thereafter with one-fourth of the cost of operation and maintenance. The electric company was required to complete the entire work by February 1, 1910, and again the electric company did nothing to comply with the order. The commission finally notified the Alton Company that the interlocking plant was so worn out that the commission would not allow further substantial repairs to be made, and ordered it taken out of service and not to be used again until a new interlocking plant should be installed.
In 1914 the Alton Company presented to the State Public Utilities Commission, successor to the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, for approval, plans for constructing an electric interlocking plant to take the place of the old mechanical plant. The plans so presented did not include the electric company, and the utilities commission on July 24, 1914, gave notice to all the companies to appear and show cause why the order of 1909 had not been complied with. On October 6, 1914, the electric company filed its petition that it should not be required to enter into the interlocking system. On October 19, 1914, the Alton Company filed its answer, alleging that an entirely new interlocking plant was necessary, and that the cost of construction, operation, and maintenance should be divided among the companies on the unit basis of division. On October 26, 1914, the Central Company answered, admitting the necessity of a new interlocking plant. but denying that it was necessary to set aside the previous orders. Hearings were had, and on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Geneseo v. Illinois Northern Utilities Co.
...104, 185 N.E. 221;Chicago Railways Co. v. Commerce Comm., 336 Ill. 51, 167 N.E. 840, 67 A.L.R. 938;State Public Utilities Comm., v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 274 Ill. 36, 113 N.E. 162. It is settled in this State that the General Assembly may transfer powers previously conferred on cit......
-
Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
...other place. The statute creating the commission is the measure of the power given to the commission. State Public Utilities Com. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 113 N. E. 162, 274 Ill. 36;State v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 94 N. W. 406, 16 S. D. 517;Board of Railroad Comrs. v. Oregon......
-
State ex rel. M. O. Danciger & Company v. Public Service Commission
... ... refuse service. Section 68, subsection 3, Pub. Service Act ... (6) The provisions of the act ... justice between patrons and public utilities ... Section 127, Public Service Act ... 1111; Utilities ... Commission ex rel. Wabash v. Ill. Central, 113 N.E. 162; ... Cawker v ... public regulation. [ Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, ... 24 L.Ed. 77.] Since, the sole ... ...
-
Okla. City v. Corp.
...conferred on it, and the limits of which are clearly defined." ¶15 The Supreme Court of Illinois, in the case of State Publ. Utilities Comm. v. I. C. R. Co., 113 N.E. 162, stated:"The Public Utilities Commission has only such authority as is expressly conferred by statute." ¶16 The New York......