Court Opinion

ID: 7811710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:13:34.467056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:29.467991
License: Public Domain

Humphreys, J. (dissenting opinion). According to the plat filed in the case the depot is without ingress or egress on the west, north and east, the only entrance for passengers being from Dickson street on the south. This street runs east and west and the old depot is close to the street, so close, in fact, that all incoming and outgoing trains, in stopping at the depot, block the street. This street is the main thoroughfare, and when blocked causes much congestion and great inconvenience to the general public. The testimony reflects that those passing from the east to the University, and vice versa, are frequently delayed from five to fifteen minutes. The situation, as reflected by the testimony, may be more clearly described as saying that the depot is “bottled up.” The testimony also reveals the great extent of the passenger traffic and the enormous income received by the company from it. This is due to the fact that trains from four directions center there. The income for a number of years far exceeded the income in larger cities. The testimony reflects that the congestion in and immediately around the depot causes great confusion and inconvenience. The repair of the old depot necessarily means the retention of the present site and the use of more space immediately around it for building purposes. It is true the proposed plan contemplates the removal of the west track a few feet to the west, and of the track east of the depot entirely, so as to give more platform space and a driveway on the east. The driveway, however, is to have no outlet to the north, so the changed situation will necessarily be the same, with only one street entrance. The depot, including the driveway and platforms, will be “bottled up.” It is apparent, from the record made, that the congestion and dangers incident to the situation will not be relieved by the repair of the old depot in the manner suggested. The trend of the major part of the testimony was in this direction, so I am convinced that the controlling issue in the case was, whether practical to repair the depot where it now sits. The order of the Commission was to build a new depot, necessarily determining, in the light of the testimony, that it should be located at a more convenient place on tire lot owned by the company. It is quite apparent that the building could he constructed on the east side of the lot, which would give two street entrances; and far enough toward the north so that incoming and outgoing trains could stop without blocking Dickson 'Street. The physical facts are undisputed,- and the testimony tending to show the congestion and inconvenience were fully developed. It is therefore unnecessary to remand the case for further evidence upon that issue. The additional testimony would necessarily he cumulative in nature. .It seems to me that the record made fully sustains the order of the Commission. Mr. Justice Wood desires to he noted as- -concurring in the views thus far expressed. In addition to the views expressed, I am of the further opinion that the plans presented by the company for repairing the depot are not commensurate with the income from passenger traffic and the importance of the city shown by the testimony.