Page images
[blocks in formation]

volves no challenge of its validity. Smithsonian Institution v. St. John, 214 U.S. 19, 29, and cases cited in the opinion.

The motion to dismiss No. 57 must, therefore, be sustained with costs.

With reference to the application for a certiorari, the power of this court cannot be doubted. As said in Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, 514.

"We reaffirm in this case the propositions heretofore announced, to wit, that the power of this court in certiorari extends to every case pending in the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and may be exercised at any time during such pendency, provided the case is one which but for this provision of the statute would be finally determined in that court."

On the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals the case was there pending for consideration and decree, and, as for reasons heretofore stated, an appeal to this court would not lie, the case can be brought here by certiorari.

The question then is whether the writ of certiorari ought to be granted. That question involves the construction of a prior decree of a United States Circuit Court, affirmed by this court. It is not a question of the payment of money, but of the extent of the use belonging to one railroad company in the tracks, right of way and terminal facilities of another, as well as the rights of access by the one company to industries established along the line of the other. This, in view of the increasing number of industries in a great and growing city like St. Louis, is of constantly enlarging importance, and ought, so far as possible, to be settled. It seems to us that both the private interests of the railroad companies, and of the separate industries and the greater interests of the public call for the granting of the writ of certiorari, and it is, therefore, so ordered.

This brings before us the original decree on the intervention. That decree, and the facts upon which the original controversy arose, as well as those upon which the present dispute rests, will be found fully stated in 29 Fed. Rep. 546; Joy v. St. Louis,

[blocks in formation]

138 U. S. 1, and 81 C. C. A. 643, supra, and need not be repested. It is sufficient to say that the decree was fourded upon contracts to which the railroad companies, or their predecessors, were parties, by which the Wabash Company agreed to “permit, under such reasonable regulations and terms as may be agreed upon, other railroads to use its right of way through the park, and up to the terminus of its road in the city of St. Louis, upon such terms, and for such fair and equitable compensation, to be paid to it therefor, as may be agreed upon by such companies." It provided that the Colorado Company should pay $2,500 a month "for the use of the right of way, and tracks, side tracks, switches, turnouts, turntables and other terminal facilities of the said Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway at and between the north line of Forest Park and · Eighteenth street in the city of St. Louis," and that of these properties it should "enjoy the equal use and benefit.” It apportioned the expense of maintaining on a wheelage basis this right of way and other property during such joint use.

Two principal questions are presented, each having reference to the existence of the rights granted by the intervention decree. The eastern line of Forest Park is about three miles west of Eighteenth street, and at the time the decree was entered the Wabash Company owned a strip of land varying in width from twenty-eight to over two hundred feet and extending from Eighteenth street to the east line of the park, and also had an easement for the passage of its trains and engines through the park upon a strip of land forty-two feet wide from the east to the north side thereof. The ground owned by the Wabash is not, as stated, of equal width, portions having been obtained by deeds from different owners, some being only twenty-eight feet in width and others extending quite a distance, so as to furnish room for roundhouses and other terminal facilities. Now, it is contended that the only effect of this decree was to give to the Colorado Company the right to use the two continuous tracks from the north line of Forest

[blocks in formation]

Park into the Union station, while, on the other hand, it is contended that it gave to the Colorado Company the equal use and benefit of the entire ground owned by the Wabash and used for its terminal facilities. Both the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the latter construction, and with that conclusion we concur. The terminal facilities, and not simply a right of way over the tracks of the Wabash running to the Union station, were granted by the decree. As said by Circuit Judge Sanborn, delivering the opinion of the Court of Appeals (p. 646):

"The ordinary signification of the term 'right of way,' when used to describe land which a railroad corporation owns or is entitled to use for railroad purposes, is the entire strip or tract it owns or is entitled to use for this purpose, and not any specific or limited part thereof upon which its main track or other specified improvements are located. Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1, 44, 45, 46; Territory of New Mexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U. S. 171, 181–2; 174 U. S. 545, 546; Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. People, 98 Illinois, 350, 356–7; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Middlecoff, 150 Illinois, 27, 37 N. E. Rep. 660, 663; Pfaff v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 108 Indiana, 144, 148, 9 N. E. Rep. 93, 95.

To one ignorant of the origin and history of the rights of the contending parties and unaware of the persuasive arguments of counsel the reading of this decree would suggest no doubt that it granted the joint use of the entire strip owned by the Wabash Company and of all the railroad facilities thereon between the east line of the park and Eighteenth street. Upon its face there is no ambiguity in its terms. They suggest no limitation or exception, and when the terms of a decree are plain and clear their ordinary meaning and effect may not be lawfully contracted or extended unless it appears with reasonable certainty that such was the purpose of the court; for the legal presumption is that the judge carefully and thoughtfully expressed therein his deliberate intention. The Wabash Company, therefore, assumed no light burden when it essayed to

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

prove that the court intended by this decree to grant to the Colorado Company the joint use of a strip only thirty feet in width out of the wider strip the Wabash Company owned between the east line of the park and Eighteenth street."

The other matter involves the question of the right of access to industrial establishments which have been built up near to the line of the Wabash road. As might be expected in a growing city like St. Louis, there are now many such establishments, access to which has been obtained by the construction of tracks connecting them with the main tracks of the railway. The use of these connecting tracks, which were constructed under different arrangements with the various establishments, is claimed by the intervenor, thus making itself a close and active competitor with the Wabash Company for their transportation business.

The general conclusion of the Court of Appeals is stated in these words (p. 657):

“The conclusion is that the Colorado Company is entitled to enjoy the joint and equal use of the entire strip of land between the east line of the park and Eighteenth street, which the Wabash owned or had acquired the right to use when the decree of 1886 was rendered, and of the tracks, side tracks, turnouts, turntables and terminal facilities now thereon. But it is not entitled to the use under that decree of any of the property, industrial or railway facilities of the Wabash Company beyond the limits of that strip. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Mason City & Fort Dodge R. Co., 199 U. S. 171."

From the latter part of this conclusion Circuit Judge Hook dissented, and that presents the question now to be considered. We are of opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals erred, and that the views of Judge Hook are correct. That the matter was considered by the Circuit Court at the time of the original decree is evident from the opinion of the Circuit Judge, in which it was said (29 Fed. Rep. 559):

“The final matter is that of compensation. In this I think

[blocks in formation]

the master erred. He fixed the value of the right of way at a million of dollars; and reported that, in his judgment, the share of the interest on this value and in the expenses of keeping up the track, which the intervenor company should pay, should be fixed upon a wheelage basis. So far as respects the mere matter of keeping up the track, I see no reason to doubt the justice of the rule fixed by the master; but in regard to the interest on the value, I think the intervenor should pay one-half of that, and for these reasons: It is a familiar fact that in a large city like St. Louis, along the track of an important railroad, within the city limits, are built large manufacturing establishments, warehouses and other buildings foi the convenient transaction of business between the carrier on the one hand and the manufacturer and the merchant on the other. Another road coming over the same track not only uses the property, of great value, which the company owner has in the first instance paid for, but also shares in the benefit of access to all these manufactories, warehouses, etc. It thus places itself in competition with the original company for this valuable business. Such competition may operate to diminish the business of the original company, or compel it to lower its rates to preserve the business. In either way it operates to the serious detriment of the original company. The new company comes in as an equal competitor. It shares in all the benefits of this business, and it may share equally. Under those circumstances it seems to me no more than fair that'a new company, which crowds itself into an equal access to such benefits and such privileges, should pay an equal share of the interest on the value of the property. Hence I shall sustain the objections of the respondent to the report of the master, so far as concerns the amount of compensation, and I think that the intervenor company must pay one-half the interest on the value and its share of the cost of keeping up the track, determined upon a wheelage basis. In other respects the report of the master will be confirmed."

« PreviousContinue »