Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/208/598/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:52:52+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 208 › Hairston v. Danville & Western Ry. Co.
Where the condemnation of land has been held by the state court to be authorized by the constitution and laws of that state, this Court cannot review that aspect of the decision.
judgment of condemnation by the state court will be assumed to have been held to be for a public use even if there was no specific finding of that fact.
While it is beyond the legislative power of a state to take, against his will, the property of one and give it to another for a private use, even if compensation be required, it is ultimately a judicial question whether the use is public or private, and, in deciding whether the state court has determined that question within the limits of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court will take into consideration the diversity of local conditions.
While cases may arise in which this Court will not follow the decision of the state court, up to the present time, it has not condemned as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment any taking of property upheld by the state court as one for a public use in conformity with its law.
The use for which property may be required by a railroad company for increased trackage facilities is nonetheless a public use because the motive which dictates its location is to reach a private industry, or because the proprietor of that industry contributes to the cost, and so held that a condemnation upheld by the highest court of Virginia as being in conformity with the law of that state did not deprive the owner of the property condemned of his property without due process of law.
This is a writ of error to the highest court of the State Virginia. The defendant in error is a corporation created by the State of Virginia and operating a railroad entirely within that state. Its main line runs near the Town of Martinsville, and from it a branch line runs into Martinsville, and there ends. The railway company began a proceeding in a circuit court of that state for the condemnation of land belonging to Miss Hairston, the plaintiff in error, for the construction of a spur track, which was alleged to be needed for the transaction of its business, for the accommodation of the public generally, and for the purpose of reaching the factory of a large shipper, the Rucker & Witten Tobacco Company. By pleadings duly filed, the landowner set up the defense (inter alia) that the proposed condemnation was not for a public use, and was therefore contrary to the Constitution and laws of Virginia and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Testimony was taken on this issue before the judge of the circuit court, who found against the contention, and appointed commissioners to ascertain the damage caused by the taking. The commissioners ascertained the amount of the damages.
The judge confirmed their report, and ordered that, upon payment of the damages, a fee simple in the land should be vested in the railway company. The landowner petitioned the Supreme Court of appeals to grant a writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court. The petition was denied, and a writ of error transferring the record to this Court was allowed.
by a modern safety switch -- derailing switch. When the cars strike this switch, they are thrown off the track on the ground. That damages the cars, and damages the track, and causes delay and expense in rerailing them again. To give some idea of the increase of business at Martinsville, I will state that the auditor of the Danville & Western Company made me a statement for November and December, 1904, as compared to same months last year, outbound or forwarded business in November, 1904."
"Mr. Staples: Will you file that report with your deposition?"
"Answer (continued): Outbound or forwarded business for November, 1904, as compared with same month 1903, shows an increase of about 16 2/3 percent. The inbound business for November, 1904, compared to same month last year, shows an increase of about 89 percent. The outbound business for December, 1904, as compared to same month 1903, shows an increase of about 16 2/3 percent, and the inbound business for December, 1904, as compared to same month last year, shows an increase of about 100 percent. So, in order to at all handle the business with safety or convenience to patrons, it is absolutely necessary to get more and better terminal facilities. In order to do that, we have located what we think to be the best and most feasible line to accomplish the two objects -- get the terminal facilities and at the same time reach the plant of the Rucker &Witten Tobacco Company."
"Q. Now, Major, will there be access along the line from Fontaine Street to the depot of the Danville & Western Ry., in Martinsville, for the purpose of reaching the cars standing upon the track?"
"A. These cars will be standing on this proposed track, not at the station, and parties can reach such cars with ease from Fontaine Street. It is also proposed to have an entrance on the alley near the Alliance warehouse, near the proposed track."
"Q. Has the City of Martinsville grown very much in size and business within the last year or two? "
"A. It has grown very much in business over our line, and I notice there is considerable building."
"Q. Well, in your opinion, is this proposed extension of your track necessary for the public convenience and for enabling the railroad to meet the business demands of the City of Martinsville?"
"A. It is, sir. There is another fact of public interest which occurs to me that probably the court would like to know. The manufacturers, or parties who use steam coal, are more conveniently located to the Danville & Western station than to the Norfolk & Western station. The coal, however, comes into Martinsville over the Norfolk & Western. The manufacturers are very anxious to handle this coal on the Danville & Western tracks on account of saving which there would be in drayage and on account of convenience. We have an understanding with the Norfolk & Western traffic people that we will switch this coal to our tracks. It is not practicable now to do this, because we have no track room. It will be practicable if this proposed road is built, and that is the object of the understanding."
"Q. Then this proposed extension will be, or will it not be, for the use of the public and for the reception and delivery of consignments by your railway to the entire public?"
"A. It will be for the use of the public in that cars loaded with carload shipments consigned to various consignees in Martinsville will be placed on these tracks to be unloaded, and empty cars will be placed on these tracks to be loaded by shippers."
"Q. You mean by shippers, shippers generally?"
"A. Yes, sir; shippers generally; anybody who wants to ship a carload of freight will get his car on the track."
walls, and the improvement and change of grade of Fountaine Street would be required. It was shown that the tobacco company agreed in writing to give to the railway company a part of the land over which the spur track was to be constructed, and to pay the cost of the remainder. The railway company, on the other hand, agreed to continue the operation of the spur track as long as the tobacco factory was operated, but reserved the option to abandon the spur track in case the factory was abandoned for six months. In that case, the land given by the tobacco company was to revert to it.
v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 164 U. S. 161; Traction Company v. Mining Company, 196 U. S. 239, 196 U. S. 251-252, 196 U. S. 260; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 198 U. S. 369; Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527.
Boston & Roxbury Mill Corp. v. Newman, 12 Pick. 467, (conf. Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 454); Turner v. Nye, 154 Mass. 579; Ex Parte Bacot, 36 S.C. 125; Dayton Mining Co. v. Seawell, 11 Nev. 394; Mining Co. v. Parker, 59 Ga. 419; Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Company, 113 U. S. 9; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co, 200 U. S. 527; Otis Co. v. Ludlow Co., 201 U. S. 140. The propriety of keeping in view by this Court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, the diversity of local conditions, and of regarding with great respect the judgments of the state courts upon what should be deemed public uses in that state is expressed, justified, and acted upon in Falbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, ub. sup., Clark v. Wells, ub. sup, and Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., ub. sup. What was said in these cases need not be repeated here. No case is recalled where this Court has condemned, as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, a taking upheld by the state court as a taking for public uses in conformity with its laws. In Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, ubi supra, it was pointed out (p. 164 U. S. 416) that the taking in that case was not held by the state court to be for public uses. We must not be understood as saying that cases may not arise where this Court would decline to follow the state courts in their determination of the uses for which land could be taken by the right of eminent domain. The cases cited, however, show how greatly we have deferred to the opinions of the state courts on this subject, which so closely concerns the welfare of their people. We have found nothing in the federal Constitution which prevents the condemnation by one person for his individual use of a right of way over the land of another for the construction of an irrigation ditch, of a right of way over the land of another for an aerial bucket line, or of the right to flow the land of another by the erection of a dam. It remains for the future to disclose what cases, if any, of taking for uses which the state constitution, law, and court approve will be held to be forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
"We have located what we think to be the best and most feasible line to accomplish two objects -- get the terminal facilities, and at the same time reach the plant of the Rucker & Witten Tobacco Company,"
"It will be for the use of the public in that cars loaded with carload shipments . . . will be placed on these tracks to be unloaded and empty cars will be placed on those tracks to be loaded by shippers."
This testimony describes a use which is clearly public. Railroad v. Porter, 43 Minn. 527; Ulmer v. Lime Rock R. Co., 98 Me. 579; Railway v. Morehouse, 112 Wis. 1; Railway v. Petty, 57 Ark. 369; Zircle v. Railway, 102 Va. 17. The uses for which the track was desired are not the less public because the motive which dictated its location over this particular land was to reach a private industry, or because the proprietors of that industry contributed in any way to the cost.

References: v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.