Title: State v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
Citation: 75 N.W.2d 129
Docket Number: 7509
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: February 17, 1956

75 N.W.2d 129 (1956) STATE of North Dakota ex rel. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent, v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, and A. L. Ford, Sr., Dale Langford and Lester W. Miller, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Interveners. No. 7509. Supreme Court of North Dakota. February 17, 1956. *130 Conmy &amp; Conmy, Fargo, for appellant. R. W. Wheeler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. Gallagher &amp; Paul, Mandan, for interveners. SATHRE, Judge. This is a mandamus proceeding brought by the Public Service Commission of the State of North Dakota against the Northern Pacific Railway Company, a foreign corporation. The facts in the case are substantially as follows: On November 15, 1954 a representative of the Northern Pacific Railway Company made a courtesy call at the office of the Public Service Commission. He advised the Commission that the Railway Company intended to discontinue mixed trains Nos. 175 and 176 over its Linton Mandan Branch Line and substitute tri-weekly service. He made it clear to the Commission that the railway company was proceeding on its own initiative in making the change and was not asking the approval of the Commission or submitting to its jurisdiction, as it was felt that this was not required or necessary. On November 23, 1954 the Railway Company wrote a letter to the Public Service Commission inclosing a copy of a public notice which had been posted by the railway company in the depots at McKenzie, Hazelton, Temvik and Linton concerning the change in the Northern Pacific Linton Branch train service which was to be effective November 29, 1954. The notice enclosed is as follows: On November 27, 1954 the Public Service Commission issued an ex parte order directed to the Northern Pacific Railway Company requiring it to continue the service of trains Nos. 175 and 176 between Mandan and Linton, North Dakota, which order is as follows: On December 4, 1954 the Railway Company wrote to the Public Service Commission a letter in which it stated that it declined to comply with the Commission's order of November 27, 1954 for the reason that the said order was made ex parte without giving the railway company an opportunity to be heard and that the said order was wholly without jurisdiction, void and of no effect. The letter is as follows: Thereafter the Public Service Commission made an application to the District Court, 6th Judicial District, Morton County, North Dakota for an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the Northern Pacific Railway Company to show cause on the 17th day of December 1954 at 10 o'clock *132 A.M. at Mandan, North Dakota, why it should not comply with the order of the Commission issued on November 27, 1954. Thereupon the said District Court, the Hon. Mark H. Amundson, Judge, issued an alternative writ of mandamus which is as follows: "To Northern Pacific Railway Company: In its return to the alternative writ of mandamus the railway company admitted its corporate existence, that prior to December 4, 1954 it had operated trains Nos. 175 and 176 between Linton and Mandan, and that on December 6, 1954, it discontinued the operation of said trains over the Linton branch, and that in its letter of December 4, 1954 to the Public Service Commission, the Commission was advised of the intention of the railway company to substitute other service on the said Linton branch. The return then alleges that said order of the Commission made on November 27, 1954, was made ex parte upon the oral request of A. L. Ford, Sr., State Legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, without the filing of a statement or complaint and without the issuance of a notice of hearing, and without serving of any notice, upon the railway company and without furnishing the railway company with any written specification of the issues to be considered, or giving it opportunity to be heard and to present evidence as required by the statutes of the State of North Dakota, and that said order was wholly illegal and void and made without jurisdiction or power. A hearing was had upon said alternative writ of mandamus on the 17th day of December, 1954, and after said hearing and on the 18th day of January, 1955 the District Court made and entered its peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the railroad company to obey and comply with the order of the Public Service Commission dated November 27, 1954. Judgment was entered on the 18th day of January 1955 in accordance with the peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the railway company to obey the order of the Public Service Commission made on the 27th day of November, 1954. The railway company appealed to the supreme court from the said judgment. On January 5, 1955 the district court, after hearing, made its order that A. L. Ford, Sr., Dale Langford, and Lester W. Miller, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, be permitted to intervene as petitioners. The said A. L. Ford is a resident of the State of North Dakota and in the employ of the Minneapolis, St. Paul &amp; Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Co., doing business in the State of North Dakota, and is a member of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, and is a legislative representative of said Brotherhood. Dale Langford is a resident of the State of North Dakota, *133 an employee of the Minneapolis, St. Paul &amp; Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Co., and a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and legislative representative for said Brotherhood. Lester Miller is a resident of the state of North Dakota, an employee of the Northern Pacific Railway Co., and a member of the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen and legislative representative of said order. Upon application of the appellant Railway Company and after hearing, the district court issued an order on February 3, 1955, requiring the Railway Company to furnish a statutory cost bond in the sum of $250 and a supersedeas bond in the sum of $5,000 and providing that upon furnishing such bonds a stay of all proceedings be had pending determination of the appeal and for a period of twenty days after the remittitur is filed in the district court. The bonds were furnished as provided by the order. The interveners appealed to the supreme court from the order of the district court permitting the appellant railway company to furnish a supersedeas bond and granting a stay of proceedings, except the entry of judgment, until final determination of the case. It is contended by the Public Service Commission that the defendant railway company had failed to give 30 days notice before discontinuing trains Nos. 175 and 176 as required by Section 49-0505, NDRC 1943. Said section reads as follows: In the instant case the Commission was advised by the Railway Company that it was not seeking the approval or authority of the Commission to discontinue trains Nos. 175 and 176, but that it proceeded solely on its own initiative. The Commission then proceeded to issue its ex parte order of November 27, 1954. Thereafter the Railway Company notified the Commission that it declined to obey such order upon the grounds that the same was illegal and void. The Commission then brought the instant mandamus proceeding and obtained the peremptory order requiring the Railway Company to comply with the order issued on November 27, 1954. The Railway Company contends that the order of the Commission of November 27, 1954 is void for the reason that there was no compliance with any of the provisions of Sections 28-3205 and 28-3208, 1953 Supp. to NDRC 1943 which are as follows: Section 28-3205: Section 28-3208: These statutes were considered by this court in the case of Petition of Village Board of Wheatland, 77 N.D. 194, 42 N.W.2d 321, 331, 335. In that case we held that the powers of the Public Service Commission must be exercised in accordance with the statutes granting such powers. We quote from the opinion: Assuming, but not deciding, that the action of the Railway Company in discontinuing trains Nos. 175 and 176 was without authority of law, nevertheless, under the provisions of Sections 28-3205 and 28-3208, supra, the Commission was without jurisdiction to make any decision or order until the Railway Company had been furnished with written specifications of any issues to be considered and determined, and until it had been afforded an opportunity to present evidence upon the issues involved. *135 The Public Service Commission contends that under the provisions of Section 49-0202, NDRC 1943 it is granted power to require public utilities to conform to the laws of the State. Said Section 49-0202 provides that the Commission shall have power: It will be noticed that under the provision of Subsection 4 quoted above the Commission has power to compel obedience to its lawful orders by proceedings of mandamus or injunction or other proper proceedings in the name of the State, in any court having jurisdiction of the parties or the subject matter. However, in a proceeding by injunction or mandamus to compel obedience to any order, the Commission must comply with the statutory requirements of procedure. In the instant case it is conceded that the order issued by the Commission on November 27, 1954 was an ex parte order and that it was issued without the service of any notice upon the Railway Company and without specifying any complaint; nor did it require the Railway Company to show cause why it should not continue the operation of trains Nos. 175 and 176. Further, under the statute quoted if the matter was of great importance the Commission could fix a hearing upon short notice because the Commission has the power to shorten the period for which notice shall be given prior to any hearing when good cause exists for such action. It is clearly established by the record that the Public Service Commission in issuing its order of November 27, 1954, was attempting to assert and exercise a general power given it without complying with jurisdictional requirements imposed by statute for such exercise. We conclude that the order of the Commission of November 27, 1954 was a nullity and that the judgment entered in the mandamus proceedings to enforce said order was erroneous. It follows also that the attempted appeal of the interveners was without any legal effect. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded with directions to vacate its judgment entered herein. BURKE, C. J., and MORRIS, JOHNSON and GRIMSON, JJ., concur.