Title: Chicago, RI & P. Rly. Co. v. State Corporation Comm.

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

177 Kan. 697 (1955)
282 P.2d 405
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 39,670

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 9, 1955.
Clayton M. Davis, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Mark L. Bennett, of Topeka, was with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Jay Kyle, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Robert M. Corbett, of Topeka, was with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARVEY, C.J.:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Republic County considering an order of the State Corporation Commission which denied appellant's application for authority to discontinue the operation of its passenger trains Nos. 25 and 26 *698 between Belleville and Goodland, Kansas, found it to be lawful and reasonable, and rendered judgment sustaining it.
The facts on which the State Corporation Commission made its order are set out in its "Memorandum Opinion" which reads:
"CONCLUSION
The State Corporation Commission made an order in harmony with its Memorandum Opinion which was incorporated in the order by reference, which, after dealing with formal matters not here important, included the following:
and denied the application of the Railroad Company to discontinue its trains Nos. 25 and 26 between Belleville and Goodland.
In due time the Railroad Company filed its application for rehearing which was duly considered by the State Corporation Commission and denied. In due time thereafter the Railroad Company filed in the district court of Republic County its application for review of the order of the State Corporation Commission whereupon the court made an order specifying the time for the parties to file abstract of record, counter abstract and briefs, and set the cause for hearing on May 20, 1954, at which time the matter was orally argued and presented to the court. With the court's permission the Railroad Company filed requested findings of fact and *703 conclusions of law. On June 25, 1954, the court entered its judgment, which reads:
Counsel for appellant present three questions for our determination. They say (1) the supreme court can and should determine from the record what the evidence established and exercise its own judgment whether or not applicant should be authorized to discontinue its trains 25 and 26.
In support of this contention they cite Mathewson v. Campbell, 91 Kan. 625, 138 Pac. 637. That case involved an election contest which depended primarily upon the validity of ballots. The ballots had been introduced in evidence as a part of the record. The problem consisted of examining the ballots to see whether they conformed to the statute. This court held it could do that as well as the trial court. The case here is not so simple, as can be seen readily from the Memorandum Opinion of the Corporation Commission. When the case was taken to the district court for review the function of the district court was to determine whether the order of the Corporation Commission was lawful and reasonable. In doing so it was necessary for the district court to review the evidence. See Union Pac. Rld. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 165 Kan. 368, 194 P.2d 939; and, City of McPherson v. State Corporation Commission, 174 Kan. 407, 257 P.2d 123. In those cases the court ruled that in the exercise of that function the district court was required to weigh the evidence, review the entire record and base its decision upon all the facts and circumstances to be gleaned therefrom. Normally, this court is an appellate court *704 and the only real question before us is whether the trial court erred in finding that the decision of the Corporation Commission was lawful and reasonable. In a number of cases which come before this court on written or documentary evidence or upon an agreed statement of facts, this court has decided for itself what the facts established. When confined within reasonable bounds it promotes the administration of justice, but if pushed too far it performs the functions of the trial court. This case was not submitted to the Corporation Commission upon an agreed statement of facts, nor upon purely documentary evidence, so the rule is not applicable here. In a case where there has been oral testimony and exhibits, the accuracy of which was questioned, this court has no authority to decide the issues de novo.
Counsel for appellant next present the proposition (2) "There is no public necessity for the operation of applicant's trains 25 and 26." This is largely a question of fact decided adversely to appellant by the Corporation Commission and necessarily affirmed by the district court. We cannot say as a matter of law that the question was wrongly decided. This is not a branch line. It is a part of the main line of appellant. Appellant has a good train, the Chicago to Denver Rocket through Omaha to Belleville and west to Denver, but it stops at only three of the county seats and has flag stops at four other places. Many people in traveling from northwest Kansas to Topeka, our seat of government, Lawrence where the University is located, and Kansas City where many of them need to go on business or for other purposes are dependent upon this line of the Rock Island, or are compelled to travel to some point where they can get adequate train service on the Union Pacific. Appellant's shortage of passenger service on its own line in that territory has deteriorated to such an extent that people use it only as a necessity. A layover of four hours in Belleville and 20 or 30 minutes at McFarland and the change of trains in the nighttime are not conducive to desirable travel.
The next question (3) presented by appellant for our determination is stated thusly: "The operation of trains 25 and 26 places an undue financial burden upon applicant; and the refusal of the Commission to authorize discontinuance is unreasonable, arbitrary and unlawful, depriving applicant of its property without due process of law." On behalf of appellee it is contended that the evidence produced by appellant before the Corporation Commission *705 was not very helpful in determining this question; that while the expense of operating the trains was computed over a period of four and a half years the number of passengers using the trains was computed over a period of only 124 days, from May 14 to September 14, 1953. Also, it was pointed out that the first six months of 1953 included expenses of a personal injury claim and property damage of slightly more than $50,000, which was not a recurring item. There was no evidence that a similar item had ever occurred before or any real likelihood that it would occur in the future. Also in the year 1952 when appellant's figures showed a substantial loss was when it was dieselizing its motive power. While this was a proper operation it was an extraordinary one. It is pointed out that Mr. Wells, appellant's Assistant General Manager, testified that the appellant railroad's total operation was making money and that this division in its over-all operation was making money; that he did not know whether the mileage from Belleville to the Colorado line was making or losing money on its over-all operation. He was of the opinion that the passenger department, Rock Island or any other railroad, is not operating at a profit when the appropriate charges are made against the passenger service. It was also shown that, that is a fact taken into consideration in fixing rates for freight and other railroad services. We have examined the cases cited by respective counsel and considered their arguments on this point and we cannot say as a matter of law that the showing made in this case establishes the fact that the refusal of the Corporation Commission to authorize a discontinuance of these two trains results in depriving appellant of its property without due process of law.
From what we have said it is clear that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.