Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway Co.
208 U.S. 598
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1908-02-24
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- noting that these needs were likely to vary depending on a State’s “resources, the capacity of the soil, the relative importance of industries to the general public welfare, and the long-established methods and habits of the people”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 129 opinions
HAIRSTONv. DANVILLE WESTERN RAILWAY,208 U.S. 598(1908)
28 S.Ct. 331
HAIRSTONv. DANVILLE AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.
No. 6.
Argued January 10, 13, 1908.
Decided February 24, 1908.
THIS is a writ of error to the highest court of the State of
Virginia. The defendant in error is a corporation created by the
State of Virginia and operating a railroad entirely within that
State. Its main line runs near the town of Martinsville, and from
it a branch line runs into Martinsville and there ends. The
railway company began a proceeding in a circuit court of that
State for the condemnation of land belonging to Miss Hairston,
the plaintiff in error, for the construction of a spur track,
which was alleged to be needed for the transaction of its
business, for the accommodation of the public generally, and for
the purpose of reaching the factory of a large shipper, the
Rucker and Witten Tobacco Company. By pleadings duly filed the
land owner set up the defense (inter alia) that the proposed
condemnation was not for a public use, and was therefore contrary
to the constitution and laws of Virginia and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Testimony was
taken on this issue before the judge of the circuit court, who
found against the contention, and appointed commissioners to
ascertain the damage caused by the taking. The commissioners
ascertained the amount of the damages.
Page 600
The judge confirmed their report, and ordered that upon payment
of the damages a fee simple in the land should be vested in the
railway company. The land owner petitioned the Supreme Court of
Appeals to grant a writ of error to review the judgment of the
circuit court. The petition was denied, and a writ of error
transferring the record to this court was allowed.
The uses for which the land sought to be condemned was needed
are described in the testimony of the superintendent of the
railroad. The material parts of it follow:
"The Danville and Western comes into Martinsville on a branch
spur from the main line, running between Danville and Stewart.
This spur leaves the main line about very nearly half a mile east
of Martinsville. It comes into Martinsville and ends at Franklin
street. The Danville and Western has in the town of Martinsville
this main line referred to. The main line proper runs parallel
with and about three feet from the platform of the freight and
passenger station. Parallel to this track there is another track,
about fifteen feet between the centers of the two tracks, running
parallel with and about four or five feet from the Alliance
warehouse. Both of those tracks are spur tracks, and end at
Franklin street. The company also has a freight and passenger
station and platform, with a portion of the platform shedded.
There is also another track, designated Tabernacle track. This
track is several hundred feet east of this freight and passenger
station referred to, and is parallel with the main line. This
track will hold seven box cars, but is quite a heavy grade —
about two feet to the hundred feet. There is also parallel with
the main line and also parallel with this Tabernacle track a spur
track, which is designated spur track. These are all the tracks
that the company has in the town of Martinsville, except a track
known as Lester's siding. This, however, is a private siding and
is fenced in. The gate is, as a rule, locked, and the company can
use for its business only about two box car lengths on the
outside of the fence. When I took charge of the road as
superintendent, on he 10th day of September, 1903, I was very
much impressed
Page 601
with the congested condition of things in Martinsville, the
danger of operating the yard, and was especially impressed with
the lack of team track room; I mean by that, suitable tracks on
which solid cars loaded with freight can be placed, such freight
to be unloaded by consignees and teams, orvice versa;tracks
to place empty cars on, into which shippers could load freight
from their teams. I found only space for three box cars — I mean
by that, proper and suitable space. That was the portion of the
track described as parallel with the platform, and west of the
station building, about three car lengths. Being impressed with
the danger of operating this yard, soon after taking charge I
gave positive instructions that the track designated as
Tabernacle track must never be used for storing cars, and must be
kept clear and used only to pass trains. The track was built and
intended to pass trains — that is, to side-track one train on it
and let the other pass. On account of the increase of the
business at Martinsville, it has been necessary to change these
instructions, and we have been forced to use the Tabernacle track
on which to place team track cars, solid cars to be unloaded by
consignees. . . . In order to get out of Franklin street I
selected a lower route, and employed a competent engineer to lay
off and make plans for the most feasible track, to obtain as much
team track room as possible, and at the same time to reach the
plant of the Rucker Witten Tobacco Co. I was informed that this
plant would be very greatly enlarged, and in fact the entire
business of this concern would eventually be consolidated at
Martinsville. By adopting the route proposed we would not only
reach the plant of the Rucker Witten Tobacco Co. and thereby
secure for the Danville Western a great increase in business,
but we would also greatly enlarge our team track facilities. I
mean by that, the portion of the track on which loaded cars would
be placed to be unloaded by merchants and others in Martinsville
doing business here. The map shows that about 500 feet of this
proposed track is level; this would be used entirely for the public.
This 500 feet would store about 16 or 18 team track cars, and will
Page 602
be used entirely to place cars on for the general public. In
addition to that we would reach the Rucker Witten Tobacco
Company's plant, and we would thus be enabled to place cars for
that concern immediately at the factory doors, thus relieving the
short team track we have in the yard, and also doing away
entirely with the danger of using this Tabernacle track as a team
track. We can also place empty cars at the Rucker Witten
Tobacco Company's plant, in which they can load their tobacco
shipments. This will also greatly relieve us at the station. This
concern has within the last thirty days made in one shipment 14
solid cars of manufactured tobacco, going to one destination, and
all shipped the same day. At present we have team track room for
seven cars on this Tabernacle siding, which I have explained, is
on a grade of about two feet to the hundred feet, and, therefore,
very dangerous to operate and to stand cars on. There is room for
three cars west of the station building between the station
building and Franklin street, and on this same track there is
room for five cars to be placed at the platform. These last five
cars, are, as a rule, merchandise cars that come here loaded for
various consignees, and are unloaded by the station force into
the station building. Unloaded freight is placed by shippers on
the platform and is loaded into empty cars standing in the same
five-car space. In order to meet the demands of the business,
therefore, it is absolutely necessary to obtain more and better
terminal facilities here. We wish to get away from the danger of
using this Tabernacle track as a team track as early as possible.
The track is on a heavy grade and cars are liable to get loose
and roll down the grade. In case one of these cars should happen
to get loose just as a train was approaching Martinsville a
serious accident would result, the grade is so heavy. Consignees
sometimes attempt to move cars a little themselves, and are not
able to hold them, and they strike the others on the track, and
they have invariably been derailed. We have in the last sixty
days had several derailments on this track. I will say, on
account of the danger, the east end of the track is protected
Page 603
by a modern safety switch, derailing switch. When the cars strike
this switch, they are thrown off the track on the ground. That
damages the cars, and damages the track, and causes delay and
expense in rerailing them again. To give some idea of the
increase of business at Martinsville, I will state that the
auditor of the Danville and Western Co. made me a statement for
November and December, 1904, as compared to same months last
year, outbound or forwarded business in November, 1904.
"Mr. STAPLES: Will you file that report with your deposition?
"The WITNESS: Yes, sir.
"ANSWER (continued). Outbound or forwarded business for
November, 1904, as compared with same month 1903, shows an
increase of about 16 2/3 per cent. The inbound business for
November, 1904, compared to same month last year, shows an
increase of about 89 per cent. The outbound business for
December, 1904, as compared to same month 1903, shows an increase
of about 16 2/3 per cent, and the inbound business for December,
1904, as compared to same month last year, shows an increase of
about 100 per cent. So in order to at all handle the business
with safety or convenience to patrons it is absolutely necessary
to get more and better terminal facilities. In order to do that,
we have located what we think to be the best and most feasible
line to accomplish the two objects — get the terminal facilities,
and at the same time reach the plant of the Rucker Witten
Tobacco Co.
"Q. Now, Major, will there be access along the line from
Fontaine street to the depot of the Danville Western Ry., in
Martinsville, for the purpose of reaching the cars standing upon
the track?
"A. These cars will be standing on this proposed track, not at
the station, and parties can reach such cars with ease from
Fontaine street. It is also proposed to have an entrance on the
alley near the Alliance warehouse, near the proposed track.
"Q. Has the city of Martinsville grown very much in size and
business within the last year or two?
Page 604
"A. It has grown very much in business over our line, and I
notice there is considerable building.
"Q. Well, in your opinion, is this proposed extension of your
track necessary for the public convenience and for enabling the
railroad to meet the business demands of the city of
Martinsville?
"A. It is, sir. There is another fact of public interest which
occurs to me that probably the court would like to know. The
manufacturers, or parties who use steam coal, are more
conveniently located to the Danville and Western station than to
the Norfolk Western station. The coal, however, comes into
Martinsville over the Norfolk Western. The manufacturers are
very anxious to handle this coal on the Danville Western tracks
on account of saving which there would be in drayage and on
account of convenience. We have an understanding with the Norfolk
Western traffic people that we will switch this coal to our
tracks. It is not practicable now to do this, because we have no
track room. It will be practicable if this proposed road is
built, and that is the object of the understanding.
"Q. Then this proposed extension will be, or will it not be,
for the use of the public and for the reception and delivery of
consignments by your railway to the entire public?
"A. It will be for the use of the public in that cars loaded
with carload shipments consigned to various consignees in
Martinsville will be placed on these tracks to be unloaded, and
empty cars will be placed on these tracks to be loaded by
shippers.
"Q. You mean by shippers, shippers generally?
"A. Yes, sir; shippers generally, anybody who wants to ship a
carload of freight will get his car on the track."
The testimony given by other witnesses did not materially add
to or affect this evidence, though the other testimony and the
cross-examination of the superintendent tended to show that in
order to render the general public use of the spur track
practicable and convenient, grading, the construction of retaining
Page 605
walls, and the improvement and change of grade of Fontaine
street, would be required. It was shown that the tobacco company
agreed, in writing, to give to the railway company a part of the
land over which the spur track was to be constructed and to pay
the cost of the remainder. The railway company, on the other
hand, agreed to continue the operation of the spur track as long
as the tobacco factory was operated, but reserved the option to
abandon the spur track in case the factory was abandoned for six
months. In that case the land given by the tobacco company was to
revert to it.
We proceed to consider whether the uses of the spur track for which the land was taken were private, and therefore such uses for which a taking by the right of eminent domain is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. The courts of the States, whenever the question has been presented to them for decision, have, without exception, held that it is beyond the legislative power to take, against his will, the property of one and give it to another for what the court deems private uses, even though full compensation for the taking be required. But, as has been shown by a discriminating writer (1 Lewis on Eminent Domain, 2d ed., sec. 157), the decisions have been rested on different grounds. Some cases proceed upon the express and some on the implied prohibitions of state constitutions, and some on the vaguer reasons derived from what seems to the judges to be the spirit of the Constitution or the fundamental principles of free government. The rule of state decision is clearly established and we have no occasion here to consider the varying reasons which have influenced its adoption. But when we come to inquire what are public uses for which the right of compulsory taking may be employed, and what are private uses for which the right is forbidden we find no agreement, either in reasoning or conclusion. The one and only principle in which all courts seem to agree is that the nature of the uses, whether public or private, is ultimately a judicial question. The determination of this question by the courts has been influenced in the different States by considerations touching the resources, the capacity of the soil, the relative importance of industries to the general public welfare, and the long-established methods and habits of the people. In all these respects conditions vary so much in the States and Territories of the Union that different results might well be expected. Some cases illustrative of the tendency of local conditions to affect the judgment of courts areHaysv.Risher,32 Pa. 169;Page 607Boston Roxbury Mill Corp. v.Newman, 12 Pick. 467 (conf.Lowellv.Boston,111 Mass. 454);Turnerv.Nye,154 Mass. 579;Ex parte Bacot,36 S.C. 125;DaytonMining Co. v.Seawell,11 Nev. 394;Mining Co. v.Parker,59 Ga. 419;Headv.Amoskeag ManufacturingCompany,113 U.S. 9;Clarkv.Nash,198 U.S. 361;Strickleyv.Highland Boy Mining Co.,200 U.S. 527;OtisCo. v.Ludlow Co.,201 U.S. 140. The propriety of keeping in view by this court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, the diversity of local conditions and of regarding with great respect the judgments of the state courts upon what should be deemed public uses in that State, is expressed, justified, and acted upon inFallbrook Irrigation Districtv.Bradley, ub. sup.,Clarkv.Wells, ub. sup. andStrickleyv.Highland BoyMining Co., ub. sup. What was said in these cases need not be repeated here. No case is recalled where this court has condemned as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment a taking upheld by the state court as a taking for public uses in conformity with its laws. InMissouri Pacific Railwayv.Nebraska, ub. sup., it was pointed out (p. 416) that the taking in that case was not held by the state court to be for public uses. We must not be understood as saying that cases may not arise where this court would decline to follow the state courts in their determination of the uses for which land could be taken by the right of eminent domain. The cases cited, however, show how greatly we have deferred to the opinions of the state courts on this subject, which so closely concerns the welfare of their people. We have found nothing in the Federal Constitution which prevents the condemnation by one person for his individual use of a right of way over the land of another for the construction of an irrigation ditch; of a right of way over the land of another for an aerial bucket line; or of the right to flow the land of another by the erection of a dam. It remains for the future to disclose what cases, if any, of taking for uses which the state constitution, law, and court approve will be held to be forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.Page 608
Entering upon the consideration of the case at bar in the spirit of our previous decisions, it presents no difficulties. The Virginia court has, in effect, found that the condemnation was for public uses. The evidence fully warranted that finding. We need not consider whether a condemnation by a railroad, authorized by a state law and approved by the state court, of land for the construction of a spur track to be used solely to transport commodities to the main line and thence to the place of sale and consumption throughout the country, is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; nor the authorities bearing upon the question whether such a use is public. Here the proposed spur track can be used, and was designed to be used, not only for access to the factory of the tobacco company but for the storage of cars to be laden or unladen by receivers and shippers of freight, and to relieve the congestion of business which, through the growth of the town, overburdened the limited trackage of the railroad. We think the court below was justified in finding that the superintendent testified accurately when he said, "In order to meet the demands of the business, therefore, it is absolutely necessary to obtain more and better terminal facilities here;" and "We have located what we think to be the best and most feasible line to accomplish two objects — get the terminal facilities, and at the same time reach the plant of the Rucker Witten Tobacco Co.;" and "It will be for the use of the public, in that cars loaded with carload shipments . . . will be placed on these tracks to be unloaded and empty cars will be placed on those tracks to be loaded by shippers." This testimony describes a use which is clearly public.Railroadv.Porter,43 Minn. 527;Ulmerv.Lime Rock Co.,98 Me. 579;Railwayv.Morehouse,112 Wis. 1;Railwayv.Petty,57 Ark. 359;Zirclev.Railway,102 Va. 17. The uses for which the track was desired are not the less public because the motive which dictated its location over this particular land was to reach a private industry, or because the proprietors of that industry contributed in any way to the cost.Page 609
We have considered the elaborate argument of counsel that the track was not intended for the use of the public generally, and that it could not, in fact, be so used, and are not convinced by it. The judgment isAffirmed.