Vandalia Railroad Company v. Public Service Commission of Indiana
| Decision Date | 11 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 81,81 |
| Citation | 242 U.S. 255,37 S.Ct. 93,61 L.Ed. 276 |
| Parties | VANDALIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA, as the Successor of the Railroad Commission of Indiana |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Samuel O. Pickens, Frederic D. McKenney, D. P. Williams, and Owen Pickens for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Bert Winters, Burt New, Wilbur T. Gruber, and Mr. Evan B. Stotsenburg, Attorney General of Indiana, for defendant in error.
The Railroad Commission of Indiana was created and broad powers were conferred upon it by an act approved February 28, 1905, and an amendatory act approved March 9, 1907 (Acts 1905, p. 83; Acts 1907, p. 454; Burns's Anno. Stat. [Ind.] 1908, §§ 5531 et seq.). By a later act (Acts 1909, p. 323), the Commission was specifically authorized and directed to investigate the condition and efficiency of headlights then in use on locomotive engines on the railroads in the state, determine the most practicable and efficient headlight for all purposes, and make and enforce against the railroad companies the necessary orders for the installation of such headlights. Pursuant to this authority it conducted an investigation, upon notice to plaintiff in error and all other steam railroad companies operating in the state, the result of which was an order, made January 6, 1910, reciting the investigation, declaring that the oil headlights commonly in use were inadequate for the protection of persons and property, and ordering that all engines used in the transportation of trains over any line of railroad in the state should be equipped 'with headlights of not less than 1,500 candle power.' About one month thereafter plaintiff in error brought an action in a state court of competent jurisdiction seeking to enjoin enforcement of the order upon the ground that the act of 1909 and the order made pursuant to it were repugnant to the 'commerce clause' of the Constitution of the United States and the statutes enacted thereunder, and to the 'due process clause' of the 14th Amendment. Among other grounds of attack it was averred that the order was so vague, indefinite, and uncertain in its description of the headlight required as to be meaningless and void, because it failed to specify at what distance from the source of light the illuminating power was to be measured, and whether it was to be determined by averaging the intensity of the light at a given distance from its source, and if so, at what distance; that the order did not specify the character of the reflector, nor whether the required candle power might be developed by reflectors or lenses, or whether the light must be of 1,500 candle power independent of such lenses or re- flectors; it being averred that each of these elements was an essential factor in the ascertainment and measurement of the illuminating capacity of headlights, and that there was no known standard by which such capacity might be measured and expressed in terms of candle power in the absence of those factors. From an amended complaint, and from the Commission's answer thereto, it was made to appear that, after the making of the order, Mr. Houghton, chairman of a committee appointed to represent the plaintiff and the other railroad companies named in the order with respect to presenting a petition to the Commission for a modification of its provisions, made written application to the Commission for a suspension of the order and a further hearing upon the subject; that the Commission replied that, under the statute and the practice of the Commission, it had authority to alter, change, or modify any final order made by it, and that the Commission would not suspend the order in question, but would treat Mr. Houghton's communication as an application for its modification, and specifying a time for the hearing of that application; that on the date specified the carriers appeared by Mr. Houghton, chairman of the committee, and by counsel, and withdrew the application for modification, whereupon it was dismissed. Plaintiff demurred to the answer, the demurrer was overruled, and, plaintiff refusing to plead further, final judgment was rendered against it, and, on appeal, this was affirmed by the supreme court of Indiana; that court holding that plaintiff's complaint did not show ground for the relief sought. 182 Ind. 382, 101 N. E. 85. The case comes here upon the Federal questions, under § 237, Judicial Code [36 Stat. at L. 1156, chap. 231, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 1214].
So far as the attack upon the Act of 1909 and the order made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huron Portland Cement Company v. City of Detroit, Michigan
...Wilmington Transp. Co. v. R.R. Commission of California, 236 U.S. 151, 35 S.Ct. 276, 59 L.Ed. 508; Vandalia R.R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 242 U.S. 255, 37 S.Ct. 93, 61 L.Ed. 276; Stewart & Co. v. Rivara, 274 U.S. 614, 47 S.Ct. 718, 71 L.Ed. 1234; Welch Co. v. State of New Hampshire......
-
Clark v. Southern Ry. Co.
...v. Chicago, etc., Co., 123 Minn. 87, 143 N. W. 249;Rose v. Des Moines, etc., Co., 39 Iowa, 246;Vandalia, etc., Co. v. Pub. Service Com., 242 U. S. 255, 37 Sup. Ct. 93, 61 L. Ed. 276;Chicago, etc., Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 18 Sup. Ct. 289, 42 L. Ed. 688;McCann v. Eddy, 133 Mo. 59, 33 S. ......
-
Weaver v. Public Service Commission of Wyoming
... ... not a transportation company; the Commission cannot convert a ... private carrier into a common ... Starr v. C ... & A. Railroad Company, 4 Zab. 597. The restrictions upon ... its use are only such as ... ...
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Williamson
...in the exertion of its police power. Compare, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Georgia, supra; Vandalia Railroad Co. v. Public Service Commission, 242 U.S. 255, 37 S.Ct. 93, 61 L.Ed. 276; Gilvary v. Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co., In arriving at the conclusion that the statute of the state ......