MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v.

MICHIGAN RAILROAD COMMISSION.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1915.
[236 U. S. 615.1]

MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the court.

It is said the statute as construed and enforced by the Commission and the Supreme Court is repugnant to the "due process" clause because it in effect requires a delivery by the Michigan Central at points off its own lines. By its terms, however, the order does not require the Michigan Central to haul the cars to points on the Detroit United, but only to permit them to be hauled by the latter company. At common law a carrier was not bound to carry except on its own line, and probably not required to permit its equipment to be hauled off the line by other carriers. A., T. & S. F. R. R. v. D. & N. O. R. R., 110 U. S. 667, 680; Kentucky &c. Bridge Co. v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 37 Fed. Rep. 567, 620; Oregon Short Line v. Northern Pacific Ry., 51 Fed. Rep. 465, 472, 475; affirmed, 61 Fed. Rep. 158. But in this, as in other respects, the common law is subject to change by legislation; and, so long'as the reasonable bounds of regulation in the public interest are not thereby transcended, the carrier's property cannot be deemed to be "taken" in the constitutional sense. Minn. & St. Louis R. R. v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53, 63; Atlantic Coast Line v. N. Car. Corp. Com'n, 206 U. S. 1, 19; Grand Trunk Ry. v. Michigan Ry. Com., 231 U. S. 457, 470; Wisconsin &c. R. R. v. Jacobson, supra; Chi., Mil. & St. P. Ry. v. Iowa, supra.

The insistence that the property of plaintiff in error in its cars is taken by the order requiring it to deliver them to the Detroit United Railway involves, as we think, a fundamental error, in that it overlooks the fact that the vehicles of transportation, like the railroad upon which they run, although acquired through the expenditure of private capital, are devoted to a public use, and thereby are subjected to the reasonable exercise of the power of the State to regulate that use, so far at least as intrastate commerce is concerned. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113. That it is not as a rule unreasonable to require such interchange of cars sufficiently appears from the universality of the practice, which became prevalent before it was made compulsory, and may be considered as matter of common knowledge, inasmuch as a freight train made up wholly of the cars of a single railroad is, in these days, a rarity. In Michigan, car interchange has long been a

1 Part of the opinion is omitted. — ED.

statutory duty. Mich. Gen. Acts 1873, No. 79, § 15, p. 99; No. 198, § 28, p. 521; Michigan Central R. R. v. Smithson, 45 Michigan, 212, 221. And see Peoria & P. U. Ry. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 109 Illinois, 135, 139; Burlington &c. Ry. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 335; State v. Chicago &c. Ry., 152 Iowa, 317, 322; affirmed, 233 U. S. 334; Pittsburgh &c. Ry. v. R. R. Commission, 171 Indiana, 189, 201; Jacobson v. Wisconsin &c. R. R., 71 Minnesota, 519, 531; affirmed, 179 U. S. 287. To speak of the order as requiring the cars of plaintiff in error to be delivered to the Detroit United "for the use of that company" involves a fallacy. The order is designed for the benefit of the public having occasion to employ the connecting lines in through transportation. The Detroit United, like the Michigan Central, acts in the matter as a public agency.

The contention that no provision is made for the paramount needs of plaintiff in error for the use of its own equipment, nor for the prompt return or adjustment for loss or damage to such equipment, nor for compensation for the use thereof, is not substantial. The order is to receive a reasonable interpretation, and according to its own recitals is to be read in the light of the opinion of the Commission, which shows that it is not intended to have an effect inconsistent with the other operations of the company. It was expressly found that there was no special ground for apprehending loss or damage to the equipment. Certainly the order does not exclude the ordinary remedies for delay in returning cars or for loss or damage to them. Nor does it contemplate that plaintiff in error shall be required to permit the use of its cars (or of the cars of other carriers for which it is responsible) off its line without compensation. The state court expressly held that section 7, c, provides for reasonable compensation to the carrier whose cars are used in the interchange. The finding of the Commission, approved by the court, was that the Michigan Central would merely have to expend its proportion of the amount necessary to install the connection between the two roads, and would be called upon for no further expenditure in the premises, and that the business to be derived by it from Ortonville, Goodrich, and the surrounding country via the Detroit United Railway, promised to be considerable in amount, and thereby the Michigan Central would be a beneficiary from the proposed connection and interchange. It was, we think, permissible for the court to find, as in effect it did find, that the benefits thus derived would include compensation for the use of the cars of the Michigan Central for purposes of loading and delivery along the line of the Detroit United. We are unable to see that any question as to the adequacy of the compensation was raised in the state court. Plaintiff in error relies upon Central Stock Yards v. Louis. & Nash.

R. R., 192 U. S. 568, and Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Stock Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132. The former of these was an action in the federal court and came here by appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals. This court held as a matter of construction that the constitution of Kentucky did not require that the railroad company should deliver its own cars to another road. The second case was a review of the judgment of the court of last resort of the State. That court having held that the state constitution did require the carrier to deliver its own cars to the connecting road, it was contended that this requirement was void under the Fourteenth Amendment as an unlawful taking of property. This court said (212 U. S. 143): "In view of the well-known and necessary practice of connecting roads, we are far from saying that a valid law could not be passed to prevent the cost and loss of time entailed by needless transshipment or breaking bulk, in case of an unreasonable refusal by a carrier to interchange cars with another for through traffic. We do not pass upon the question. It is enough to observe that such a law perhaps ought to be so limited as to respect the paramount needs of the carrier concerned, and at least could be sustained only with full and adequate regulations for his protection from the loss or undue detention of cars, and for securing due compensation for their use. The constitution of Kentucky is simply a universal undiscriminating requirement, with no adequate provisions such as we have described. . . . We do not mean, however, that the silence of the constitution might not be remedied by an act of legislature or a regulation by a duly authorized subordinate body if such legislation should be held consistent with the state constitution by the state court." The case now before us is plainly distinguishable, as appears from what we have said. And, upon the whole, we see no sufficient ground for denouncing the regulation in question as either arbitrary or unreasonable.

CHAPTER VI.

REGULATION OF THE SERVICE.

PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. v. DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL CO.

COURT OF APPEALS, NEW YORK, 1865.

[31 N. Y. 91.]

DAVIES, J. The defendant is the owner of a canal extending from tide water on the Hudson River, to the interior of the State of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff is the owner of extensive coal mines, bordering on the defendant's canal, which it mines for transportation to market. For such purpose, it is the owner of a large number of canal boats navigating the defendant's canal. By an agreement or deed, made and entered into between the parties to this action, dated 29th July, 1851, the defendant covenanted and agreed with the plaintiff, to furnish to any and all boats owned or used by the plaintiff for the purpose of transporting coal entering the said canal, by railroad connecting with the said canal, at or near the mouth of the Wallenpaupack River, or containing coal, entering as aforesaid, belonging to or transported by or on account of the plaintiff, in which coal, or the transportation thereof, the plaintiff might be in any manner interested, all the facilities of navigation and transportation which the said canal should furnish, when in good, navigable condition and repair, to boats used by any other company or person, or belonging to or used by or containing coal transported by or for or on account of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged a breach of said contract or agreement in this, that the number of boats employed by the plaintiff in the transportation of coal upon said canal, was greater than the number employed by the defendant therein, and that the boats of the plaintiff, and those employed by it, made their trips in much shorter time than the boats of the defendant, and therefore the act of the defendant in neglecting and refusing to pass the boats of the plaintiff through the locks on said canal in the order in which they arrived at the locks respectively, but delaying them

until one of the boats of the defendant, or of some individual, arriving after the plaintiff's boat at such lock, had been passed, was highly injurious and of great detriment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff prays judgment, that the defendant may be decreed and adjudged to use and manage said canal and the locks thereon, in such manner as not to impede, hinder, or delay the boats of the plaintiff navigating the said canal, and used for the purpose of transporting coal entering said canal at or near the mouth of the Wallenpaupack River, or containing coal, and entering as aforesaid, belonging to or transported by or on account of the plaintiff, and may be restrained from giving the preference of passage through any lock thereon to some other boat than the plaintiff's, although the latter arrived first at such lock, and that the defendant might be decreed specifically to perform its said agreement with the plaintiff.

The case was tried by the court without a jury, and the court found as matter of fact, that the plaintiff had not proven a breach of the contract, and the court thereupon gave judgment for the defendant, denying the relief asked for, and denying the injunction prayed for and dismissing the complaint with costs. The General Term, on appeal, affirmed this judgment, and the plaintiff now appeals to this court.

The only ground upon which the plaintiff could invoke the aid of a court of equity to decree a specific performance of the contract, and to restrain the defendant from its violation, was that there had been a breach of the contract and a violation, or a threatened violation of it. This was the foundation of the plaintiff's edifice, the corner stone upon which it rested. The finding by the court, that no breach or violation of the contract had been proven, entirely demolishes all claim of the plaintiff to any equitable relief. No threatened violation of the contract is alleged or pretended, and it follows that the judgment of the Supreme Court on this state of facts was correct, and the same should be affirmed.

MULLIN, J. Two questions only are presented for consideration on this appeal. These are: 1st. Whether the contract between the parties had been violated. And if it has, then, 2d. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a specific performance of the contract.

1. Have the defendants broken the contract?

The defendants obligated themselves by the agreement to furnish to the plaintiffs' boats all the facilities of navigation and transportation which their canal should afford, when in good and navigable condition and repair, to boats owned or used by any other company or person, or owned or used by the defendants for the transportation of coal.

The contract, it will be perceived, is not, as the plaintiffs' counsel seems to construe it, that the defendants will afford to the plaintiffs' boats all the facilities of navigation that the canal, when in good order, shall afford, but it is to furnish all the facilities to the plaintiffs that the canal, when in good order, shall afford to any other person's or company's boats, including defendants' own boats.