Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 585, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Otis Elevator Co. v. Chicago, 263 Ill. 419, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 198, 105 N. E. 338; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 419, 52 L. ed. 551, 554, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324, 13 Ann. Cas. 957; Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U. S. 385, 59 L. ed. 632, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 345; Merrick v. N. W. Halsey & Co. 242 U. S. 568, 61 L. ed. 498, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; People v. Charles Schweinler Press, 214 N. Y. 395, L.R.A.1918A, 1124, 108 N. E. 639, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 1059; People v. Williams, 189 N. Y. 131, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1139, 121 Am. St. Rep. 854, 81 N. E. 778, 12 Ann. Cas. 798; Re. West Jersey Traction Co. 59 N. J. Eq. 63, 45 Atl. 282; Newark v. Central R. Co. 73 N. J. Eq. 469, 67 Atl. 1009; Newark v. Erie R. Co. 75 N. J. Eq. 20, 71 Atl. 620; Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 45 L. ed. 194, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; Washington ex rel. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510, 56 L. ed. 863, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Dallas, 98 Tex. 396, 70 L.R.A. 850, 84 S. W. 648; Northern C. R. Co.'s Appeal, 103 Pa. 621; Pennsylvania & R. R. Co. 160 Pa. 232, 28 Atl. 771; Schuylkill Valley Co. v. Philadelphia Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. State Public Utilities Commission, 273 Ill. 210, 112 N. E. 689; Connecticut Co. v. Stamford, 95 Conn. 26, 110 Atl. 554; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis, 238 Fed. 384; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Ochs, 249 U. S. 416, 63 L. ed. 679, P.U.R.1919D, 498, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 343; Re Christensen, 43 Fed. 243; Grainger v. Douglas Park Jockey Club, 78 C. C..A. 199, 148 Fed. 513, 8 Ann. Cas. 997; Sargent v. Rutland R. Co. 86 Vt. 328, 85 Atl. 654; Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min. & Mill. Co. 152 U. S. 160, 38 L. ed. 398, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 506; Security Trust & S. V. Co. v. Lexington, 203 U. S. 323, 51 L. ed. 204, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 87; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Wright, 207 U. S. 127, 52 L. ed. 134, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47, 12 Ann. Cas. 463; East Side Levee & Sanitary Dist. v. East St. Louis & C. R. Co. 279 Ill. 123, 116 N. E. 720; Milwaukee v. Railroad Commission, 162 Wis. 127, P.U.R.1916C,

592, 155 N. W. 948.

cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in error in No. 35:

The power to require an owner of property to make alterations is limited by the requirement that such alterations shall be reasonable in nature, to be determined not only by the nature and extent of the alterations required to be made, but by the expense entailed in relation to the value and nature of the property involved in the proposed alterations.

Health Dept. v. Trinity Church, 145 N. Y. 40, 27 L.R.A. 710, 45 Am. St. Rep. 579, 39 N. E. 833; 2 Tiedeman, State & Federal Control of Persons & Property, p. 988; Helena v. Dwyer, 64 Ark. 424, 39 L.R.A. 266, 62 Am. St. Rep. 206, 42 S. W. 1071.

The order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners, and the statute upon which the same was based, deny the water company the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247.

Mr. George S. Hobart argued the cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in

error in No. 36:

Telegraph lines, when extending through different states, are instruments of interstate commerce, and the

tion of such commerce.
messages passing over such lines from
one state to another constitute a por-

Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708; S. 460, 26 L. ed. 1067; Western U. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. Teleg. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 30 L. ed. 1187, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 306, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1126; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 40 L. ed. 1105, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; WestCo. 218 U. S. 406, 54 L. ed. 1088, 36 ern U. Teleg. Co. v. Commercial Mill. L.R.A.(N.S.) 220, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 59, 21 Ann. Cas. 815; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 55 L. ed. 498, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 399; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Brown, 234 U. S. 542, 58 L. ed. 1457, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 955, 5 N. C. C. A. 1024; Gardner v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 145 C. C. A. 399, 231 Fed. 405.

The order under review and the stat

ute upon which the same is based impose a burden upon the interstate traf

Mr. George S. Hobart argued the fic of the telegraph company.

Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western U., Teleg. Co. 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. ed. 1067; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 30 L. ed. 1187, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 306, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1126; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 40 L. ed. 1105, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Commercial Mill. Co. 218 U. S. 406, 54 L. ed. 1088, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 220, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 59, 21 Ann. Cas. 815; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 55 L. ed. 498, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 399; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Brown, 234 U. S. 542, 58 L. ed. 1457, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 955, 5 N. C. C. A. 1024; Postal Teleg.-Cable Co. v. Baltimore, 24 L.R.A. 161, note. The improvement ordered is attempted to be justified on the theory that it will remove danger to public safety and impediment to public travel on the public streets. It is therefore neither more nor less than an improvement of the public streets. It should, therefore, be paid for either by assessments for special benefits or by general taxation. State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185; State, Morris & E. R. Co., Prosecutors, v. Jersey City, 36 N. J. L. 56; State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. L. 330; Davis v. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 144, 23 Atl.

276.

The statute is arbitrary and capricious.

New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437.

A hearing in its very essence de

mands that he who is entitled to it

shall have the right to support his allegations by argument, however brief, and, if need be, by proof, however in

telegraph company the equal protection of the laws.

Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247.

The order and the statute impair the obligation of the telegraph company's contracts with the Erie Railroad Company.

Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708; State, Hudson Teleph. Co., Prosecutor, v. Jersey City, 49 N. J. L. 303, 60 Am. Rep. 619, 8 Atl. 123; Phillipsburg Electric Lighting, Heating & P. Co. v. Phillipsburg, 66 N. J. L. 505, 49 Atl. 445; United Electric Co. v. Bayonne, 73 N J. L. 410, 63 Atl. 996; Owensboro v. Cumberland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 230 U. S. 59, 66, 57 L. ed. 1389, 1393, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988.

Mr. George S. Hobart argued the cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in error in No. 37:

An individual or a corporation is entitled to receive compensation for interference with switch connections or

other shipping facilities, due to a change in the location or grade of main

line tracks.

Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co. V. McGrew, 104 Mo. 282, 15 S. W. 931; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Blacker, 178 Mass. 386, 59 N. E. 1020; Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wolf, 137 Ill. 360, 27 N. E. 78; Chicago v. Walker, 251 Ill. 629, 96 N. E. 536.

The case is analogous to a compulsory payment of a special tax or assessment for the benefit of the general publie without any corresponding benefit.

State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., State, Morris & E. R. Co., Prosecutors, Prosecutor, v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185; New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecu v. Jersey City, 36 N. J. L. 56; State, tor, v. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. L. 330; Davis v. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 144, 23 Atl. 276; Houck v. Little River Drainage 386, 52 L. ed. 1103, 1112, 28 Sup. Ct. Dist. 239 U. S. 254, 60 L. ed. 266, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58; Myles Salt Co. v. Rep. 708. Iberia & S. M. Drainage Dist. 239 U. S. 478, 60 L. ed. 392, L.R.A.1918E, 190, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 204.

formal.

Londoner v. Denver, 210 U. S. 373,

The assertion of a right on the part of the legislature to take the property of one citizen and transfer it to another, even for a full compensation, where the public interest is not promoted thereby, is claiming a despotic power, and one inconsistent with every just principle and fundamental maxim of a free government. 15 Cyc. 578, 579.

The equal protection of the laws means subjection to equal laws, applying alike to all in the same situation.

Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247.

Mr. George S. Hobart argued the The order and the statute deny to the cause, and, with Mr. William B. Gour

ley, filed a brief for plaintiffs in error ment on property of the company for in Nos. 38 and 39: special benefits.

If the order means that either Morris & Company or the railroad company is required to make a violent change in the location of the plant of Morris & Company it is, to that extent, clearly invalid.

Potter v. Public Utility Comrs. 89 N. J. L. 157, 98 Atl. 30.

The order directing the construction of a new crossing at Montgomery street as a substitute for the present crossing at Franklin street, 500 feet distant, is an unwarranted exercise of power and invalid.

Van Horne v. Newark Pass. R. Co. 48 N. J. Eq. 332, 21 Atl. 1034; Lahr v. Metropolitan Elev. R. Co. 104 N. Y. 268, 10 N. E. 528.

Abutting property owners on the part of Franklin street which the or der now under review directs to be vacated are entitled to subject such order to judicial scrutiny.

Beecher v. Newark Street & Water Comrs. 64 N. J. L. 475, 46 Atl. 166, affirmed in 65 N. J. L. 307, 47 Atl. 466; Morris & C. Dredging Co. v. Jersey City, 64 N. J. L. 142, 45 Atl. 917; Lambert v. Paterson, 72 N. J. L. 437, 60 Atl. 1131; Sherwood v. Paterson, 88 N. J. L. 456, 94 Atl. 311.

Mr. Charles E. Hughes also argued for plaintiffs in error in Nos. 35-39.

Mr. Frank Bergen argued the cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in error

in No. 40:

The order under review, so far as it relates to the street railway company | is an invalid effort to exercise the power of taxation.

State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Newark, 10 N. J. Eq. 352; State, Morris & E. R. Co., Prosecutor, v. Minton, 23 N. J. L. 529; State, Agens, Prosecutor, v. Newark, 37 N. J. L. 415, 18 Am. Rep. 729; Tidewater Co. v. Coster, 18 N. J. Eq. 519, 90 Am. Dec. 634; Bernards Twp. v. Allen, 61 N. J. L. 228, 39 Atl. 716; Van Cleve V. Passaic Valley Sewerage Comrs. 71 N. J. L. 574, 108 Am. St. Rep. 754, 60 Atl. 214; State, Lydecker, Prosecutor, v. Drainage & Water Comrs. 41 N. J. L. 154; State, Baldwin, Prosecutor, v. Fuller, 39 N. J. L. 576.

State, Morris & E. R. Co., Prosecutors, v. Jersey City, 36 N. J. L. 56; State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. L. 330; Davis v. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 144, 23 Atl. 276.

The order, so far as it relates to the street railway company, is not a legitimate exercise of the police power.

License Cases, 5 How. 583, 12 L. ed. 292; Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 85; Re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 50 Am. Rep. 636; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U. S. 56, 59 L. ed. 1199, L.R.A.1915E, 953, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 675; Freund, Pol. Power, § 612; Maxwell v. Goetschius, 40 N. J. L. 383, 388, 29 Am. Rep. 242.

Property lawful in itself, and being lawfully used, is not, nor is its use, a nuisance; and consequently the owner cannot be compelled by the police power to abandon or change the use of it, or to change its location, or destroy it, at his own expense.

Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R. Co. 17 N. J. Eq. 77, 86 Am. Dec. 252; Grey ex rel. Simmons v. Paterson, 60 N. J. Eq. 388, 48 L.R.A. 717, 83 Am. St. Rep. 642, 45 Atl. 995; State v. Erie R. Co. 84 N. J. L. 661, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 117, 87 Atl. 141; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 31 L. ed. 205, 8 .Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Vreeland v. Forest Park Reservation Commission, 82 N, J. Eq. 349, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 87 Atl. 435, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1153; Boyd V. United States, 116 U. S. 635, 29 L. ed. 754, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524.

Messrs. L. Edward Herrmann and Frank H. Sommer argued the cause, and, with Mr. Francis Scott, filed a brief for defendants in error:

The common law imposes upon a railroad company the duty to maintain the public highways where they cross the railroad, in condition for safe and convenient use at all times and under all circumstances. This duty is continuing and extends to the separation of the grades of the public highway and the railroad whenever such separation is reasonably necessary for safety and convenience. The duty applies alike to highways in existence when the railroad was laid out and to those constructed later.

The requirement in the order that the State ex rel. Clara City v. Great street railway company shall pay 10 Northern R. Co. 130 Minn. 489, L.R.A. per cent of the cost of abolishing the 1918D, 1153, 153 N. W. 879; State ex three grade crossings is not an assess-rel. St. Paul v. M. Transfer R. Co. 80

Minn. 108, 50 L.R.A. 656, 83 N. W. 32; State ex rel. St. Paul v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 122 Minn. 280, 142 N. W. 312; Wabash R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 176 Ind. 428, 95 N. E. 673; State ex rel. Minneapolis v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 98 Minn. 380, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 298, 120 Am. St. Rep. 581, 108 N. W. 261, 8 Ann. Cas. 1047; Clark v. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. L. 575, 40 Atl. 616, 737; Palmyra v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 62 N. J. Eq. 614, 50 Atl. 369.

The laws of New Jersey impose upon railroad companies operating within the state a continuing duty at all times and under all circumstances to keep the public highways, where they cross the railroad, in a condition fit for safe and convenient use. The duty so imposed is applicable alike to public highways existing at the time of the laying out of the railroad, or later extended there

over.

South Amboy v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 76 N. J. Eq. 57, 73 Atl. 852, same case 77 N. J. Eq. 244, 76 Atl. 1038; Central R. Co. v. State, 32 N. J. L. 220; State v. Lackawanna R. Co. 84 N. J. L. 293, 86 Atl. 386.

The Grade Crossing Elimination Act, under which the proceedings which terminated in the judgments here under review were initiated, simply provides a definite method of enforcing the duty imposed by the common law, the provisions of the charters, and the provisions of the General Railroad Act, in specific cases.

Hudson County v. Central R. Co. 68 N. J. Eq. 500, 59 Atl. 303.

The source of the state's authority to adopt regulations for public safety at grade crossings is the police power of the state.

Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Southwest Pennsylvania R. Co. 77 Pa. 173; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Orange, 63 N. J. L. 258, 43 Atl. 730, 47 Atl. 363.

The elimination of grade crossings is within the scope of this power.

New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Norwood v. New York & N. E. R. Co. 161 Mass. 259, 37 N. E. 199; Illinois R. Co. v. Copiah County, 81 Miss. 685, 33 So. 502; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Fayetteville, 75 Ark. 534, 87 S. W. 1174; Cincinnati, I. & W. R. Co. v. Connerville, 218 U. S. 336, 54 L. ed. 1060, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93, 20 Ann. Cas. 1206; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Omaha, 235 U. S. 121, 127, 59 L. ed. 157, 160, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 82.

The Grade Crossing Elimination Act and the order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners, made in pursuance thereof, impose upon the railroad company part of the cost of the separation of grades. Neither the act nor the order is obnoxious in this particular to the due process clause of the Constitution.

New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561, 50 L. ed. 596, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis, 232 U. S. 430, 58 L. ed. 671, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 400; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Denver, 250 U. S. 241, 63 L. ed. 958, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 450.

Both the statute and order relate to highways existing at the time of the construction of the railroad and to highways laid out thereafter. In this respect neither the order nor the statute is obnoxious to the due process clause of the Constitution.

State ex rel. Minneapolis v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 98 Minn. 380, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 293, 120 Am. St. Rep. 581, 108 N. W. 261, 8 Ann. Cas. 1047; Northern P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 208 U. S. 583, 52 L. ed. 630, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis, 232 U. S. 428, 58 L. ed. 671, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 400.

The statute provides for the imposition of not exceeding 10 per cent of the cost directly chargeable to the elimination of the crossings used by the street railway company, upon that company. The order made in pursuance of the statute imposes 10 per cent of such costs upon the street railway company. Neither the statute nor the order in this respect is obnoxious to the due process clause of the Constitution.

Missouri P. R. Co. v. Omaha, 235 U. S. 121, 59 L. ed. 157, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 82; Northern P. R. Co. v. Puget Sound & W. H. R. Co. 250 U. S. 332, 63 L. ed. 1013, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 474; Public Service R. Co. v. Public Utility Comrs. 89 N. J. L. 24, 98 Atl. 28, affirmed in 90 N. J. L. 715, 103 Atl. 1054; Detroit, Ft. W. & B. I. R. Co. v. Railroad Commissioner (Detroit, Ft. W. & B. I. R. Co. v. Osborn) 127 Mich. 219, 62 L.R.A. 149, 86 N. W. 842; Fitchburg v. Boston & M. R. Co. 203 Mass. 304, 89 N. E. 438.

The statute requires that changes in, or the removal of, the property or constructions of any telegraph, water, etc.,

company, shall be made by such company at its own expense. The order made in pursuance of the statute requires such changes. Neither the statute nor the order is, on this account, obnoxious to the due process clause of the Constitution.

Ct. Rep. 450; Morris & E. R. Co. v.
Orange, 63 N. J. L. 253, 43 Atl. 730, 47
Atl. 363; New York & N. E. R. Co. v.
Bristol, 62 Conn. 527, 26 Atl. 122, 151
U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep.
437; Waterbury v. Central Vermont R.
Co. 93 Vt. 461, 108 Atl. 423.

Neither the Grade Crossing Elimination Act nor the order made in pursuance thereof contravenes the contract clause of the Constitution by reason of the effect thereof upon the contracts embodied (a) in the leases of the railroads and franchises, or (b) the contracts between the railroad companies and the holder of their obligations and securities, or (c) the contracts between the railroad companies and other utility companies occupying the public highways and crossing the railroad, or (d) the contracts between the railroad companies and others for switch connections and service.

Water Comrs. v. Hudson, 13 N. J. Eq. 420; Re Deering, 93 N. Y. 361; Stillwater Water Co. v. Stillwater, 50 Minn. 498, 52 N. W. 893; Detroit v. Ft. W. & E. R. Co. 90 Mich. 646, 51 N. W. 688; Columbus Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Columbus, 50 Ohio St. 65, 19 L.R.A. 510, 40 Am. St. Rep. 648, 33 N. E. 292; Natick Gaslight Co. v. Natick, 175 Mass. 246, 56 N. E. 292; New England Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Boston Terminal Co. 182 Mass. 397, 65 N. E. 835; Anderson v. Fuller, 51 Fla. 380, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1026, 120 Am. St. Rep. 170, 41 So. 684; Scranton Gas & Water Co. v. Scranton City, 214 Pa. 586, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1033, 64 Atl. 84, 6 Ann. Cas. 388; Indianapolis Manigault v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473, v. Indianapolis Light & Heat Co. 177 50 L. ed. 274, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 127; Ind. 396, 95 N. E. 246; Walker v. North | Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia PubBergen Twp. 84 N. J. L. 248, 86 Atl. lic Service Corp. 248 U. S. 372, 63 L. 63; New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Drainage Commission, 197 U. S. 453, 49 L. ed. 831, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 471.

The statute requires that the order made thereunder shall be directed to the company operating such railroad. The order made in pursuance of the statute was directed to the Erie Railroad Company, the company operating such railroad. Neither the statute nor the order in this respect was obnoxious to the due process clause of the Constitution.

Lee v. Smith, 42 Ohio St. 458, 51 Am. Rep. 839; Scott v. Harvey, 105 Pa. 222, 51 Am. Rep. 201; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Walker, 45 Ohio St. 577, 16 N. E. 475; Buffalo Stone & Cement Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 130 N. Y 152, 29 N. E. 121; Westbrook's Appeal, 57 Conn. 95, 17 Atl. 368.

Neither the Grade Crossing Elimination Act nor the order made in pursuance thereof impaired the obligation of any contract between the state and the railroad companies.

ed. 309, P.U.R.1919C, 60, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 117; Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 357, 52 L. ed. 828, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, 14 Ann. Cas. 560; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467, 482, 55 L. ed. 297, 304, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 671, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265; Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 550, 551, 20 L. ed. 287, 312, 313; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 567, 55 L. ed. 328, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548, 558, 58 L. ed. 721, 726, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 364; Rail & River Coal Co. v. Yaple, 236 U. S. 338, 349, 59 L. ed. 607, 615, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 362; Swift v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 66 N. J. Eq. 34, 57 Atl. 456, 66 N. J. Eq. 452, 58 Atl. 939; Branson v. Philadelphia, 47 Pa. 329; Asher V. Hutchinson Water, Light & P. Co. 66 Kan. 496, 61 L.R.A. 52, 71 Pac. 813; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.'s. Appeal, 75 Conn. 264, 53 Atl. 314; Re Grade Crossing Comrs. 209 N. Y. 139, 102 N. E. 552; Otis Elevator Co. v. Chicago, 263 Ill. 419, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 192, 105 N. E. 338.

Neither the Grade Crossing Elimination Act nor the order made in pursuance thereof imposes a direct burden upon or interferes with the regulation of interstate commerce, in violation of the commerce clause.

Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Emmons, 149 U. S. 364, 37 L. ed. 769, 13 Sup. Ct. Ren. 870; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57, 42 L. ed. 948, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 513; Northern P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 208 U. S. 583, 52 L. ed. 630, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Miller, 221 U. S. 408, 55 L. ed. 789, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 31 534; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Denver, L. ed. 508, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 250 U. S. 241, 63 L. ed. 958, 39 Sup. 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Nashville, C. & St.

1

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »