2. The act entitled "An Act establishing a depot at
Plantsville," approved July 15, 1875 (
infra, p.
104 U. S. 3), does
not impair the obligation of any contract between that state and
the New Haven and Northampton Company.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The New Haven and Northampton Company is a Connecticut
corporation, authorized to construct and operate a railroad from
New Haven, through the town of Southington, to the Massachusetts
state line. It has full power to erect and maintain toll houses and
other buildings for the accommodation of its concerns as it may
deem suitable for its interest, but its
Page 104 U. S. 2
charter may "be altered, amended, or repealed at the pleasure of
the General Assembly." In 1848, after the road was built, three
stations were established in the town of Southington, named
respectively Southington, Plantsville, and Hitchcock's, at which
trains stopped for freight and passengers.
In 1866, the general assembly of the state passed a statute
which contained the following provision in respect to the
abandonment of railroad stations:
"No railroad company shall abandon any station on its road in
this state after the same has been established for twelve months
except by the approval of the railroad commissioners given after a
public hearing held at such station, notice of which shall be
posted conspicuously in said station for one month prior to the
hearing."
In November, 1873, the company became desirous of abandoning one
or more of its stations in Southington, and for that purpose
presented a petition to the railroad commissioners, representing
that two stations properly located would be ample for the public
convenience and asking that the matter might be inquired into and
that the Southington or Plantsville station, or both, might be
discontinued, and two stations, and only two, located in the town,
where the common good of all parties in interest would be most
promoted. The requisite notice was given, and the commissioners
having heard the application, on the 3d of February, 1874, made the
following order:
"After a careful and full examination of the locality and
business surroundings of the present located stations and an
extended hearing of all the appearing parties in interest, with
their evidence and arguments of counsel, the railroad commissioners
do find and approve, and do hereby order, that the New Haven and
Northampton Company may discontinue and abandon the present
stations of Southington and Plantsville, as at present located,
under and by complying with the following provisions and
conditions,
viz.:"
"The New Haven and Northampton Company shall provide and erect a
passenger station house near their new freight depot, as shown on
the map exhibited and submitted, and after and in compliance with
the plans and profiles also submitted for said passenger station
building, and provide suitable and
Page 104 U. S. 3
convenient approaches thereto, also suitable, convenient, and
easy approaches to their new freight depot, all of which shall be
done to the acceptance of the railroad commissioners. Said company
shall also continue the same facilities for receiving and shipping
freight by the carload and unbroken, as at present enjoyed, to each
and all of the parties who patronize their railroad by receiving
and shipping freight thereby."
Before this time, the company had bought the ground and erected
buildings adapted to freight business at the place indicated in the
order. It afterwards, at an expense of $10,000, put up a building
for passenger purposes, as required by the commissioners. This
being acceptable to the commissioners, the stations of Southington
and Plantsville were abandoned by the company, and both passenger
and freight trains stopped at the new place only.
The succeeding legislature passed an act, approved July 15,
1875, "establishing a depot at Plantsville." It is as follows:
"SEC. 1. That if, at any time within six months after the
passage of this act, any of the petitioners and others who may act
with them for that purpose shall erect at Plantsville, contiguous
to the railroad a depot building, and convey the same, with the
land on which it is situated, and the land reasonably necessary for
the approaches thereto by the railroad trains, to the New Haven and
Northampton Company, to be used for railroad purposes, it shall
thereupon become the duty of said company, and it is hereby
ordered, to stop at such depot thereafter its regular passenger and
freight trains passing over said railroad, for the purpose of
receiving and discharging passengers and freight. And all the
provisions of the Revised Statutes applicable to railroad depots
and stations shall be applicable to said depot in the same manner
as though said depot had been erected and established by said
company."
"SEC. 2. Said order may be enforced by mandamus by the attorney
for the state for the County of Hartford, or at the relation of any
inhabitant of the Town of Southington, in said county, and the
charter of the New Haven and Northampton Company is hereby amended
according to the provisions of this act."
The petitioners named complied with the provisions of the act,
and, having tendered the company a conveyance of suitable depot
grounds and buildings at Plantsville, demanded that
Page 104 U. S. 4
the regular passenger and freight trains running on the road be
stopped there. This the company refused to do, and the attorney for
the state for the county of Hartford now seeks by mandamus to
enforce the law. The court below gave judgment against the company,
holding, among other things, that the act of 1875 did not impair
the obligation of any contract rights which the company had
acquired from the state. Upon this ground, the case has been
brought here by writ of error.
It was conceded in the argument that there is nothing in the
charter to prevent the state from passing the law complained of.
Confessedly the power of amendment which was reserved meets this
part of the case; but it is claimed that by the action of the
railroad commissioners the state has become bound by a contract not
to exercise its legislative power so as to require the
establishment of a depot at Plantsville.
As it seems to us, the court of errors of the state took the
right view of the statute under which the commissioners acted when
they said, in
State of Connecticut v. New Haven &
Northampton Co., 37 Conn. 153, 163, that its object was
"to prevent railroad companies from arbitrarily changing their
places of business on the road, to the prejudice of those who,
relying on the permanency of such places, shape their business
accordingly."
The powers of the commissioners, as agents of the state, in this
particular, are confined to such as are necessary for the
accomplishment of that object. They may, after a public hearing,
approve of -- that is to say, give the assent of the state to --
the abandonment of a station which has been established twelve
months or more, and that is all they can do. They may, as was held
in
State v. New Haven & Northampton Co., 42
id. 56, direct that their approval take effect only when
the company shall have provided suitable accommodations for the
public at some other place, but that is only a conditional approval
of the abandonment. When the new accommodations have been provided
and the old station abandoned, nothing more has been accomplished,
so far as the company is concerned, than a lawful abandonment of an
old place of business. The powers of the state over the charter
remain just as they were before. Until the act of 1866, the company
could abandon its stations at will, and the state by charter
amendment, or even
Page 104 U. S. 5
by a general law, might require their restoration. After that
act, the power of abandonment by the company was restricted, but
the state retained all its old authority. The commissioners were
given no power to contract for the state or the public. All they
could do was to say yes or no to a simple request by the company
for leave to abandon an old station. If they said yes, the
abandonment might be made; if no, the station must be continued. In
this case the commissioners said, "Yes, when the new accommodations
are furnished." The new accommodations were furnished, and the
station was abandoned accordingly. Such, in the case last cited,
was the view which the court of errors took of what had been done,
and we think it is correct. The commissioners entered into no
agreement with the company. They simply said complete your proposed
accommodations at the new station and we, for the state, will
assent to your abandonment of the old one. It follows that the new
law impaired no contract obligation of the state, and the judgment
of the court of errors is consequently
Affirmed.