Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

STANFORD JUNIOR
LIBRARY

LELAND

UNIVERSITY
H2283

1

COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.

OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION,

LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, December 5, 1887. To Hon. John M. Thayer, Governor of the State of Nebraska:

The undersigned, menrbers of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, a tribunal created by the Legislature of Nebraska at its session in 1885, which Board has since been abolished by the repeal of the act creating it, and the substitution of the Board of Transportation, have the honor to submit the following report of their doings for the year ending June 30, A.D. 1887, as such Board of Railroad Commissioners:

The Board of Railroad Commissioners entertained and acted upon the following complaints during the year ending June 30, 1887:

No. 40.
Lars Nelson,

Complainant,

Vs.
The U.P. Ry Co.,

Respondent. The complaint alleged a failure to fence the right-of-way through the complainant's land. The company answered that the complainant had not enclosed his tract of land, and that under the law of the State, the company could not be required to fence its right-of-way at that point until complainant's tract was enclosed. The Board took the same view of the matter, and the complaint was dismissed.

No. 41.
J. B. Lemington,

Complainant,

VS.

The F., E. & M. V. R. R.,

Respondent. Mr. Lemington complained that the company had killed a Holstein bull belonging to him, and refused to settle. The Board notified Mr. Lemington that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, and the complaint was dismissed.

No. 42.
Ed. Grissel,

Complainant,

VS.

B. & M. R. R.,

Respondent. J The complaint alleged a failure on the part of the respondent to fence its right-of-way through the lands of the complainant. The company was notified of the complaint, and August 6, 1886, notified the Board that the fence had been erected.

[merged small][ocr errors]

The U. P. R’y Co.
This complaint was consolidated with No. 57, which see.

No. 44.
G. F. Ringsley

VS.
The B. & M. R. R.

The complaint alleged that the company had killed a number of shoats belonging to the complainant, and asked the Board to collect damages for same. After some correspondence with the company, the Board was advised that the matter had been settled by the parties interested.

[merged small][ocr errors]

U. P. R’y Co.

Mr. Knowles, as village attorney of Mead, Nebraska, complained that the stock yards of the company at that point were a nuisance.

[ocr errors]

In answer to the complaint, the company alleged that the stock yards of which citizens of Mead complained, were the private yards of one Carlson, situated on the right-of-way of the company, and that it would cause its removal. Mr. Knowles expressed his satisfaction with this arrangement, and the complaint was dismissed.

[merged small][ocr errors]

C., St.P., M. & O. R’y Co.

The complaint alleged that the agent of the respondent at Lyons station had quoted rate of $40.00 per car on sheep to Chicago. That thereupon the complainant purchased three car loads of sheep and shipped them to Chicago, and that the respondent charged him $56.75 per car, and complainant asked that the company be required to refund the excess above $40.00 per car. After an investigation, the Board recommended the refunding of this excess, which was done by

, the company, and the complaint was satisfied.

No. 47.
Elisha Hoffman

VS.
B. & M. R. R.

This case was consolidated with that of Geo. W. Carpenter against the same respondent.

No. 48.

J. Waltemeyer & Son

VS.

B. & M. R. R.

The complaint alleges that complainant is engaged in canning vegetables at Falls City, and that the B. & M. R. R. refuse to permit him to cross its right-of-way in order to reach a side-track belonging to Mo. Pac. R’y, where he desires to load goods, whereby he is compelled to go around a mile and a half, while across the right-of-way, the distance would only be 150 feet, and asks that the Board compel the company to open a road across there at the foot of Monroe street. The Board decided it had no jurisdiction in the premises, and dismissed the complaint.

[ocr errors]

No. 49.

157 Citizens of Newport The F., E. & M. V.R.R.

The complainants allege that there was no depot at the village of Newport, and recites the number of firms and character of business transacted, the population of the village, etc., and asks that the Board compel the company to erect a depot, construct side-tracks, and other facilities, and cause it to establish and maintain a regular station at that point.

After considerable correspondence with the parties, the Board made a personal investigation of the matter, and recommended that steps be taken by the company to satisfy the demands of the complainants. The company indicated its intention to do so, and as no further word has been received from the complainauts, the Board presumes that the depot has been erected to the satisfaction of complainants.

No. 50.
Board of Trustees of the
Village of Cambridge

Vs.
The B. & M. R. R.

The complainants ask that the Board cause the respondent to open two crossings over its right-of-way in the corporate limits of the village. The company offered to put in a crossing at Penn street, of which offer the Village Board was notified, and requested to state if that arrangement would be satisfactory, but no response has been received by the Board.

[merged small][ocr errors]

C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
The complaint alleged that an engine of a passing train of the re-

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »