Court Opinion

ID: 9771478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:44:50.344106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:31.888084
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Upon original submission of the case, under their point three, appellants emphasized the theory and maxim we discussed. However, they also urged, in a general way, that upon the undisputed facts, by exercising the powers expressly conferred by Section 10 of Article 15 of its charter, or by exercising the general police powers conferred by its charter and by statute, the city could have required Missouri Pacific Railroad Company to change the location of its railroad, and that the city was therefore without authority to assume any part of the expense of changing it. In their motion for rehearing, appellants emphasize the latter theory, urging that the contracts in question are for such reasons ultra vires and void and are therefore also within the prohibition of Article 11, sec. 3, of the Constitution. They refer us to the case of Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. City of Dallas, 98 Tex. 396, 413, 84 S.W. 648, 653, 70 L.R.A. 850, wherein it was said:
“All of the courts agree that the companies are not entitled to be paid the expense of doing those things which may properly be required of them by virtue of the police power to secure the safety of persons using the crossings, but differ as to what things are within that category.”
The court was there referring to situations in which the police power is actually and validly exercised. It neither held nor intimated that a municipality can in no event lawfully assume the burden of doing that which, by exercising its police power, it could require another to do at such other’s expense; nor has any authority asserting such a principle been cited us. Moreover, good reasons readily suggest themselves for supposing not only that the law is otherwise, but that the matter of whether a municipality shall itself do what it desires done or shall use its police power to compel another to do it is one that always rests in the sound discretion of the governing body of the municipality. But be that as it may, we cannot agree with appellants’ contention that the evidence reflects a situation in which the city clearly could have required the railroad company to change the location of the span of railroad. The evidence went no further in that direction than to show a need for corrective measures and that grounds for invoking the police power existed. The practicality and reasonableness of requiring the railroad company to relocate its railroad as a corrective measure were not dealt with. The company could not have been compelled to do an impractical and unreasonable thing. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. City of Dallas, supra, 98 Tex. 413, 84 S.W. 648; Lehigh Valley Railroad Company v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 278 U.S. 24, 49 S.Ct. 69, 73 L.Ed. 161, 62 A.L.R. 805. And since the city’s right to compel relocation of the span of railroad was not certain, it cannot be success*340fully argued that because the city possesses the police power the contracts in question are without consideration. Nor do we think that the contracts impair the city’s right to exercise its police power. On the record that is before us, the city not only had no clear right, but had no right at all, to compel the railroad company to make the contemplated change in the location of the span of railroad to which the contracts appertain. And the contracts do not otherwise affect the city’s right to exercise its police power.
We again call attention to the case of Austin v. Shaw, 235 N.C. 722, 71 S.E.2d 25. Although some of the questions with which we have dealt were not therein expressly discussed, virtually all of them were necessarily involved. The facts of the case were almost identical with those in the case at bar. Also, see Knoxville Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. City of Knoxville, 153 Tenn. 536, 284 S.W. 866.
One additional matter requires discussion. Appellants say that we misinterpreted their eighth point, and it seems that we may have done so. Also, a closer examination of the record discloses that, contrary to what we said or at least intimated in the next to the last paragraph of the original opinion, the trial court did specifically adjudge both contracts to be valid. This was done on the basis of the cross-action that was filed by the city and its officers. Neither the State nor either of the railroad companies was named as a party to the cross-action and appellants say that the trial court was therefore without jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the contract of January 29, 1958, which was not mentioned in the plaintiffs’ petition. They perhaps also contend that the court was without jurisdiction to make other pronouncements that were made in the judgment. We deem the matter immaterial. The court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the cross-action and of those who were parties to the cross-action. Strictly speaking, therefore, a jurisdictional question is not involved. The most that can be involved is an absence of indispensable parties. And it is not even necessary that that question be decided. Appellants’ rights have not been adversely affected, even if the trial court exceeded its authority in rendering judgment on the cross-action. The matters adjudged on the cross-action were all implied in that part of the judgment that decreed that the plaintiffs take nothing. The contract of January 29, 1958, was properly before the court through the answers of the defendants and the evidence, and because it was, in effect, a part of the contract the plaintiffs themselves attacked, the contract of December 17, 1957. If any error was committed, it was harmless as regards appellants.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.