§ 4440. Regulations as to depots. Regulations requiring construction and maintenance of stations and depots, where reasonable, are valid,29 and such a requirement is ordinarily within the power of a public service commission,30 but there is considerable conflict as to whether the legislature or a commission may require railroad companies to establish or maintain a station that will not pay expenses.31 An order directing the establishment of a station will not be upheld where unreasonable, taking into consideration not only the public need therefor but also the fact that the road is operated at a loss.32 So an order of a commission requiring the building of a station at a village of only one hundred inhabitants within less than a mile of a regular station has been held invalid because unreasonable.3 33 And an order of a commission requiring a company to construct a new passenger depot has been held unreasonable where there is no defect or inadequacy which could not be remedied by repair, enlargement and improvement of the existing depot.34

In a proper case, a commission may require railroad companies to establish a union station,35 or may require the erection of a

People, 152 Ill. 230, 26 L. R. A. 224, 38 N. E. 562; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. People, 132 Ill. 559, 22 Am. St. Rep. 556, 24 N. E. 643.

Mississippi Railroad Commission V. Tilinois. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 203 U. S. 335, 51 L. Ed. 209; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514, 44 L. Ed. 868; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. State, 85 Ark. 284, 107 S. W. 989; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 26 Okla. 804, 138 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 110 Pac. 668.

Louisiana. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Louisiana, 109 La. 247, 33 So. 214.

Minnesota. State v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 90 Minn. 277, 96 N. W. 81.

Mississippi. Southern R. Co. in Mississippi v. State, 95 Miss. 657, Ann. Cas. 1912 A 225, 48 So. 236.

Nebraska. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 85 Neb. 818, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 444 with note, 124 N. W. 477.

32 State v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 69 Fla. 165, 67 So. 906.

33 State v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 76 Minn. 469, 79 N. W. 510. 34 State v. Public Service Commission, 271 Mo. 155, 196 S. W. 369.

35 Railroad Commission of Alabama v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 185 Ala. 354, L. R. A. 1915 D 98, 64 So. 13.

depot.36 A commission may also fix the location of depots and station houses in municipalities, which should be so located as to best serve public convenience, taking into consideration questions of safety and the practical operation of the railway interested.37

§ 4441. Regulating running time of trains. A public service commission may establish a time schedule for trains, provided it is reasonable and just in its effect upon the carrier and the patrons, although such power does not contemplate that the commissioners shall arbitrarily assume the actual control and management of the physical property of the carrier so as to unlawfully deprive the carrier of its right to manage its own property.38 An order of a commission requiring a railroad, whenever an express train is late, to hold the express back until the local trains then due have all passed, is unreasonable.39

§ 4442. Requiring connections with other roads. It is well settled, as stated by the Supreme Court of the United States, that "it is within the power of a state, acting through an administrative body, to require railroad companies to make track connections where the established facts show public necessity therefor, just regard being given to advantages which will probably result on one side and necessary expenses to be incurred on the other"; 40 and this is the rule laid down by state courts. Moreover, such power is often expressly conferred on public service commissions by state statutes.

36 State v. Great Northern R. Co., 135 Minn. 19, 159 N. W. 1089.

37These are all matters properly within the jurisdiction of the railway commissioners for consideration, and their action in relation thereto should not be interfered with by the courts, unless in violation of some law or some paramount right of interested parties.'' Town of Emery v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 39 S. D. 334, 164 N. W. 108.

38 State v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 62 Fla. 315, 57 So. 175.

39 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 124 Md. 141, 91 Atl. 768

40 Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Georgia, 240 U. S.

How

324, 60 L. Ed. 669, aff'g 213 Fed. 27, following Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 45 L. Ed. 194.

A state commission may require railroad companies to make track connections where the facts show necessity therefor. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. V. Railroad Commission of Georgia, 240 U. S. 324, 60 L. Ed. 669, aff'g 213 Fed. 27.

41 Railroad Commission of Alabama v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 197 Ala. 161, 72 So. 397; Michigan Railroad Commission v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 168 Mich. 230, 132 N. W. 1068; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 266 Mo. 333, 181 S. W.

61.

VII Priv. Corp.-27.

ever, as stated by the Supreme Court of the United States, this "does not mean that a commission may compel them to build branch lines, so as to connect roads lying at a distance from each other; nor does it mean that they may be required to make connections at every point where their tracks come close together in a city, town and country, regardless of the amount of business to be done, or the number of persons who may utilize the connection if built. The question in each case must be determined in the light of all the facts, and with a just regard to the advantage to be derived by the public and the expense to be incurred by the carrier." 42 Whether the enforcing track connections between two railroad companies is a valid regulation depends upon "whether it is a reasonable or an unreasonable exercise of legislative power over the subject-matter involved," which is to be determined from the facts of the particular case.43

§ 4443. -Requiring construction of spur tracks. The Supreme Court of the United States, in 1910, held that a Nebraska statute requiring railroad companies, on application of elevator owners near the right of way, to build a side track at its own expense, was unconstitutional, and there are like holdings in the state courts. In Minnesota, however, it is held that a railroad company may be required to provide necessary side track facilities to an industry adjacent to its tracks upon such terms as shall be found to be necessary and reasonable under all the circumstances and after a full hearing, although such terms may impose part of the expense therefor upon the railroad.46 It is held in Michigan that the railroad commission has no power to fix a universal rule that railroad companies agreeing to construct and maintain private side tracks may not embody certain things in the agreement.47

Statutes often require railroad companies to construct spur tracks,

42 State v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510, 528, 56 L. Ed. 863.

43 Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 301, 45 L. Ed. 194.

44 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196, 54 L. Ed. 727, 18 Ann. Cas. 989, rev'g 81 Neb. 15, 115 N. W. 614.

45 See, for instance, McInnis v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co., 109 Miss. 482, L. R. A. 1915 E 682, 68 So. 481; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. State, 27 Okla. 424, 112 Pac. 980.

46 Ochs v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 135 Minn. 323, 160 N. W. 866, distinguishing Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196, 54 L. Ed. 727, 18 Ann. Cas. 989, as involving a statute requiring the railroad company to construct side tracks at its own expense without any opportunity for a hearing as to the necessity or reasonableness of the proposed expenditure.

47 Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Michigan Railroad Commission, 183 Mich. 383, 150 N. W. 154.

leaving the question of the apportionment of the cost to the discretion of the public service commission.48

§ 4444. Regulations as to grade crossings. Railroad companies may be required to abolish existing grade crossings.49 That a railroad company "may be required by the state, or by a duly authorized municipality acting under its authority, to construct overhead crossings or viaducts at its own expense" is well settled, and "the consequent cost to the company as a matter of law is damnum absque injuria, or deemed to be compensated by the public benefit which the company is supposed to share." 50 Thus a railroad company may be required to elevate its tracks so as to avoid grade crossings,51 or to build and maintain bridges over its tracks at street crossings,52 or it may be compelled to construct a subway.53

§ 4445. Requiring lighting of tracks. Regulations requiring railroad companies to light their tracks at crossings within municipalities are a proper exercise of the police power,54 but the regulation will not be upheld where the amount of light required is unreasonable or where the safety of the public does not require the lighting.55

§ 4446. Regulating rate of speed. Regulations of the rate of speed in towns or cities, or on approaching crossings, are a proper exercise of the police power, provided they are reasonable.56 Regula

48 State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. . Co., 115 Minn. 51, 131 N. W. 859.

49 Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis, 232 U. S. 430, 58 L. Ed. 671; Erie R. Co. v. Board of Public Utility Com'rs, 89 N. J. L. 57, 98 Atl. 13.

50 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Omaha, 235 U. S. 121, 127, 59 L. Ed. 157, aff'g 197 Fed. 516. See also New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 566, 38 L. Ed. 269.

51 Otis Elevator Co. v. Chicago, 263 Ill. 419, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 192, 105 N. E. 338; Foley Mfg. Co. v. Chicago, 194 Ill. App. 532.

52 Chattanooga v. Southern R. Co., 128 Tenn. 399, 161 S. W. 1000.

53 State v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 95 Kan. 22, L. R. A. 1915 E 751, 147 Pac. 801.

54 Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. R. Co.

v. Hartford City, 170 Ind. 674, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.), 461, 85 N. E. 362, 82 N. E. 787; Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Bowling Green, 57 Ohio 336, 41 L. R. A. 422, 49 N. E. 121.

55 Chicago v. Pennsylvania Co., 252 Ill. 185, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1081, Ann. Cas. 1912 D 400, 96 N. E. 833; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Connersville, 147 Ind. 277, 37 L. R. A. 175, 62 Am. St. Rep. 418, 46 N. E. 579; Shelbyville v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 146 Ind. 66, 44 N. E. 929.

56 Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548, 58 L. Ed. 721; State v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 128 Wis. 79, 107 N. W. 295.

Power of city to regulate speed of trains, see also note in 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 561.

tions limiting the speed to from four to six miles an hour are sometimes held unreasonable and sometimes held reasonable,57 but the reasonableness of the particular speed limit depends upon the particular facts of each case.58 Regulations held unreasonable are generally those where most of the municipal limits through which the train passes is farming land or where the right of way is fenced upon both sides.59 However, regulations limiting the speed of trains on approaching crossings or while within municipal limits, so far as applicable to interstate trains, are sometimes held invalid as an improper interference with interstate commerce, at least where unreasonable.60 Statutes enacted in some states, or orders of a commission, fixing a minimum rate of speed for transporting live stock or other special kinds of freight, are a proper exercise of the police power provided they are reasonable and practical in their operation and do not impose an undue burden upon the carrier.61

In Nebraska 62 and North Dakota,63 however, particular statutes have been held invalid as an unreasonable exercise of the police power.

-

§ 4447. Prohibiting obstruction of streets. Prohibiting the obstruction of streets, where crossed by a railroad, by standing cars for more than a certain number of minutes, is a proper regulation, provided the time fixed is not so short as to be unreasonable as against the railroad companies or so long as to be unreasonable as to the public. Generally the time limit is from two to ten minutes, and such

57 See Lusk v. Dora, 224 Fed. 650 and cases cited; Buffalo v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 152 N. Y. 276, 46 N. E. 496; Washington Southern Ry. Co. v. Lacey, 94 Va. 460, 26 S. E. 834.

Ten mile an hour limit held reasonable in Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Carlinville, 200 Ill. 314, 60 L. R. A. 391, 93 Am. St. Rep. 190, 65 N. E. 730.

58 Lusk v. Dora, 224 Fed. 650. 59 Burg v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 90 Iowa 106, 48 Am. St. Rep. 419, 57 N. W. 680; Meyers v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 57 Iowa 555, 42 Am. Rep. 50, 10 N. W. 896; Evison v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 370, 11 L. R. A. 434, 48 N. W. 6; White v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 44 Mo. App. 540.

60 Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Blackwell, 244 U. S. 310, 61 L. Ed.

1160, L. R. A. 1917 F 1184 with note, and see § 4393, supra.

61 See Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Kyle, 228 U. S. 85, 57 L. Ed. 741, aff'g 84 Neb. 621, 122 N. W. 37; Cram v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 84 Neb. 607, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1022, 122 N. W. 31, 85 Neb. 586, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1028, 19 Ann. Cas. 170, 123 N. W. 1045, aff'd 228 U. S. 70, 57 L. Ed. 734.

62 Davison v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 100 Neb. 462, L. R. A. 1917 C 135 with note, 160 N. W. 877.

63 Downey v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 N. D. 621, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1017, 125 N. W. 475.

64 A statute providing that trains shall not stand on streets to exceed ten minutes does not preclude an ordinance limiting the time to five