Court Opinion

ID: 6661278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:02:17.47955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:11.343496
License: Public Domain

Sedgwick, J.
Before the year 1905 the Lincoln Traction Company owned and was operating lines of street railway in the city of Lincoln, some of which lines extended outside of the corporate limits of the city. In that year the Citizens Railway Company was organized, and constructed and operated lines of street railway over other public streets of the city, some of the said lines also extending outside of the limits of the city. It constructed what is known, as “Loop No. 1” in the central part of the city, from the intersection of N and Twelfth streets, two blocks north to the intersection of Twelfth and P streets, thence one block west to Eleventh street, and thence south along Eleventh street to N street, and east on N street to the intersection of Twelfth street. Also a line from the intersection of N and Twelfth streets along N street to Twenty-ninth street, and one along Twelfth street from N street to South street, and thence east on South street to Twenty-sixth street. It also constructed several lines connected directly and indirectly with the said loop at the intersection of N and Twelfth streets. Afterwards, in 1909, the two companies were consolidated, and both properties taken over by the defendant, the Lincoln Traction Company. A corporation, known as the Citizens Interurban Railway Company, was organized by some, if not all, of the principal stockholders of the Citizens Railway Company. It built a road from the village of College View to the intersection of Twenty-sixth and South streets in. the city of *156Lincoln. The Citizens Railway Company had for some time before the commencement of this action operated its cars over this line to and into the city of Lincoln over South and Twelfth streets. After the consolidation the defendant abandoned some parts of the said line formerly owned and operated by the Citizens Railway Company, and the plaintiff began this action in the district court for Lancaster county to enjoin the defendant, its officers and agents, “from ceasing to operate a line of street cars around said Loop No. 1 and over said Twelfth street to South street, and thence east to Twenty-sixth street, and thence over said ‘.High Line’ to the village of College View, and back and around said Loop No. 1,” and from “abandoning any of the lines of street cars and street car service which were owned and operated by said Citizens Company prior to the said alleged consolidation; that they may be required to forthwith operate said line of street cars from the intersection of N and Twelfth streets south on Twelfth street to South street, and thence east on South street to Twenty-sixth street, and thence over said ‘High Line’ to College View and back, and to give the same street car service that there was over said line on Twelfth street and to said village of College View and back that was given prior to said alleged consolidation; that defendant may be required to restore the street car service on all the lines which it has abandoned, and that it may be required to operate all of its cars around said Loop No. 1, and give the same service on said cars that was given and afforded by said Citizens Company prior to said alleged consolidation.” Seventeen citizens, who claimed to be interested in the Twelfth street line, and an organization, styled the Public Service League of Lincoln, united in a petition in intervention, alleging generally the interest of. each in the Twelfth street line, and alleging that the petitioners and many other citizens named in the petition “will be without remedy at law and will suffer irreparable damage should the prayer of plaintiff to this action be denied.” Afterwards other citizens joined in this petition in intervention. The prayer of the interveners was sub*157stantially the same as to the Twelfth street line as the prayer of the petitioners. The defendant answered, admitting the allegations of the petition as to the organization of the various companies, and their construction and operation of the street car lines described in the petition, and the consolidation of the Citizens Railway Company and the Lincoln Traction Company, and denied generally the other allegations of the petition. The plaintiffs and the interveners filed replies to the answer of the defendant in the nature of general denials. The trial court made quite extensive findings of fact, and enjoined the defendant, its officers and agents, “from abandoning Loop No. 1 as herein described, and from abandoning the South Twelfth street line from Twelfth and N streets to South street, and thence east on South street to Twenty-sixth street, and from abandoning any of the lines formerly operated by the Citizens Railway Company now operated around Loop No. 1, and from changing the routing of the cars of said lines from the route over which they are now operated, and especially from routing any of said lines so as to remove the same from said Loop No. 1,” and “that the defendant do forthwith restore and operate the line of street cars from the intersection of N and Twelfth streets south on Twelfth street to South street, and thence east on South street to Twenty-sixth street, and thence over said High Line to College View and back, and give the same street car service over the south Twelfth street line and ‘High Line’ to said village of College View and back that was given by the Citizens Company over-said lines prior to the consolidation;” and “that the plaintiffs and interveners recover their costs in this action as taxed at $-.” The defendant has appealed.
The petition alleges that the plaintiff Henry Herpolsheimer is the owner of several lots in the city of Lincoln, located at the intersection of N and Twelfth streets, and that there is a large store building on these lots fronting on N and Twelfth streets, and that the plaintiff H. Herpolsheimer Company has occupied the building as a place for conducting a general merchandise business, and has, *158at all times mentioned in the petition, carried a stock of merchandise in said building of the value of more than $100,000, and that, when the Citizens Railway Company was organized, at the request of that company the said Henry Herpolsheimer took 10 shares of stock therein and paid therefor $1,000; that; in consideration of the taking of said stock by the said Herpolsheimer, and for other considerations set out at large in the petition, the officers and promoters of the Citizens Railway Company assured the said Herpolsheimer “that there would be no change in the operation of cars over said Twelfth street from the intersection of N and Twelfth streets to and from said College View, or in the operation of cars over said Loop No. 1.” This contract is urged as one of the reasons for enjoining the defendant as prayed in the petition. The defendant, in the briefs, insists that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction because the state railway commission has exclusive jurisdiction of the matters and things complained of in their petition.
The constitutional amendment of 1906 provides: “The powers and duties of such commission shall include the regulation of rates, service and general control of common carriers as the legislature may provide by law. But, in the absence of specific legislation, the commission shall exercise the powers and perform the duties enumerated in this provision.” Const., art. V, sec. 19a. The statute enacted pursuant thereto provides: “The commission shall have the power to regulate the rates and services of, and to exercise a general control over all railroads, * * * and all other common carriers.” Rev. St. 1913, sec. 6107. There is no doubt that the building and operation of a street railway line through the city affects the values of property in the vicinity, and the financial interests of the citizens, as well as their convenience and other interests. Substantial changes in the service may affect those values and interests either favorably or unfavorably. It is alleged that the principal stockholders and officers of the defendant railway company are largely interested in property and different lines of business in the city, and that *159the proposed changes of the routing of the street cars, ánd other proposed changes in the service, are for the benefit and in the interests of those officers and directors, and not in the interest nor for the benefit of the public at large, and that such changes would be highly injurious to the property and business of these plaintiffs, as well as to the value of the property and the interests of the interveners who reside upon, or in the vicinity of, the Twelfth street line. When such changes are made they should be made in the interest of the public generally, and the rights of the street railway company, the economy and efficiency of the service, and the interests of the citizens whose property rights and convenience are especially affected, should all be considered. Contracts between individuals and public service companies which are for their benefit alone should also be considered, so far as those contracts do not interfere with the superior rights of the general public. There is no doubt that such matters are within the purview of the constitutional provision and the statute above quoted, which provide that the state railway commission shall have power to regulate the service and control common carriers of passengers. It appears that changes of this kind have been made by the street railway company, .and that such changes have been by the company reported to the state railway commission from time to time, but it does not appear that these changes were authorized by the state railway commission, nor that any. application has been made to that commission for authority to make such changes. The power to regulate rates of common carriers would be incomplete and comparatively useless without the corresponding power to regulate the service, and control the common carrier in performing such service, and these powers are expressly given to the state railway commission by the terms of the constitution, and the statute enacted thereunder. It seems clear that these provisions prevent the defendant from making such changes in the service without first obtaining the authority of the state railway commission so to do.
*160In determining such matters the state railway commission is not required to adjudicate the alleged contracts betAveen individuals and the defendant, nor to determine as to the existence of alleged conspiracy between the stockholders and officers of the defendant to violate such contract and to injure the plaintiffs. These are judicial questions, and the courts are not deprived of jurisdiction thereof by the constitutional amendment and- statutes referred to. State v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 83 Neb. 524. But the railway- commission should consider the proposed changes in the service as affecting the public interests, and whether and to what extent the interests of the general public would be affected by the enforcement of such private contracts. They will take a general vieAV of the whole situation, and determine the necessity and propriety -of the proposed changes, having due regard to the rights of the defendant, and economy of service, and the interests of all parties concerned, and especially the superior rights -of the general public.
The decree is modified so as to apply to the line of the Citizens Interurban Company from College View to the intersection of TAventy-sixth and South streets in the city only so far as this defendant controls the bringing of cars from over that line into the city of Lincoln and to the business section thereof. It may be that considerations •of public benefit and convenience, if brought to the attention of the state railway commission, may dictate an approval of the present service or a modification of the service as directed by the decree of the district court. With these questions this court cannot be concerned, since they .are administrative in their nature, and not judicial. The affirmance of the decree of the district court necessarily must leave these matters open for such action as may be taken by the commission upon proper application being made, and is without effect upon its discretion in the matter. In all other respects, the decree of the district court is affirmed. The costs of this appeal will be taxed to the defendant.
Affirmed as modified.