1. Upon review of a decree of a state court requiring a street
railway company to continue operating for a noncompensatory rate
upon the ground that it is bound to operate for that rate by
contract with a municipality, this Court must pass upon the
company's claim that the contract has expired and that the decree
deprives it of its property without due process of law. P.
281 U. S.
508.
2. A street railway company in Georgia which, pursuant to a town
ordinance, made a contract with the town prescribing a maximum fare
with respect to one of its lines situate partly within the town
Page 281 U. S. 506
limits, afterwards claimed that the only franchise for the
operation of the line within the town was an earlier ordinance of
the town under which the line had been constructed by the company's
predecessor in title, and that the obligation to operate the line
and maintain the contract fare ended with the expiration of the
predecessor's charter some time after the date of the contract.
Held (accepting the state court's construction of the
state law and it decision as to the effect of the contract), that
the new company's franchise to operate was granted by the state,
that all that the town could give was its consent to use the
streets, which was given by the contract, and that the franchise of
the new company and the contract are still in force. P.
281 U. S.
509.
3. There is nothing in the ordinance or contract here in
question to indicate a purpose to terminate the obligation of the
carrier in respect of the fare limited while it continues to
operate the line as part of its system under its present franchise.
P.
281 U. S.
510.
4. The contract will continue to bind the carrier during the
period intended by the parties unless earlier altered by them or
relaxed by state authority, and losses attributable to the stretch
of track in question and the fares fixed by the contract are
immaterial while the contract continues. P.
281 U. S. 511.
168 Ga. 705 affirmed.
Certiorari, 280 U.S. 544, to review a decree which affirmed a
decree permanently enjoining the present petitioner from ceasing to
operate a street railway line within the City of Decatur, Georgia,
and from violating a contract fixing rates of fare and transfer
privileges.
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The City of Decatur brought this suit in the Superior Court of
De Kalb County against the Georgia Railway & Electric Company
and the Georgia Railway & Power Company. The former was the
owner and the latter was the lessee and operator of a system of
street
Page 281 U. S. 507
and suburban railway lines of more than 200 miles serving
Atlanta, Decatur, and other places in that part of Georgia. Before,
trial, they consolidated and became the Georgia Power Company, and
it was made the defendant. The city prayed, and the court granted,
a decree permanently enjoining petitioner from violating an
ordinance passed by the city March 3, 1903, from violating a
contract of April 1, 1903, based upon the ordinance, and from
ceasing to operate about a mile of its line in Decatur. The decree
was affirmed by the state supreme court. 168 Ga. 705.
Prior to the commencement of this suit, it had been finally
adjudged in litigation between the city and petitioner's
predecessors that the ordinance and contract bound the carrier not
to charge more than five cents per passenger between points on that
stretch of track in Decatur and the terminus of the line in
Atlanta, and required it, upon the payment of each full fare, to
give to the passenger a transfer ticket that would entitle him for
one fare to ride between points on such track and points on any of
the carrier's lines in Atlanta. It was also held that the State
Railroad Commission was without authority to change rates that are
established by contract.
Georgia Ry. & Power Co. v.
Railroad Comm'n, 149 Ga. 1;
Georgia Ry. & Power Co. v.
Town of Decatur, 152 Ga. 143;
Georgia Ry. & Power Co.
v. Decatur, 153 Ga. 329;
262 U. S. 262 U.S.
432. The duration of the defendant's obligation to operate that
line or to serve for such contract fare was not determined.
August 14, 1919, the commission fixed the carrier's fares other
than those covered by the contract at six cents; September 22,
1920, it raised them to seven cents, and December 15, 1927, it made
them ten cents per passenger, but required the carrier to sell four
tickets for thirty cents. The cost of the transportation covered by
the contract fare, exclusive of any compensation for the use of
property
Page 281 U. S. 508
employed to furnish the service, exceeds the revenue derived
therefrom, and is substantially higher per passenger than the cost
of service covered by the fares fixed by the commission. An
ordinance of the City of Decatur passed May 15, 1925, directed
paving of the streets occupied by the line in question and the
assessment of a substantial portion of the cost against the lessee.
Thereupon lessor and lessee offered to surrender to the city the
permit for the operation of the line and the lessee notified the
city that, at a time specified, it would discontinue the service.
The city refused to accept the surrender and promptly brought this
suit.
Petitioner maintained below, and here insists, that the
franchise and the rate contract expired August 16, 1919, and that
its obligation to operate the line or keep the five-cent fare in
force was terminated by such offer and notice.
See Denver v.
Denver Union Water Co., 246 U. S. 178,
246 U. S. 184.
It contends that the rate is confiscatory, that the decree requires
it to operate the line and to serve for the five-cent fare, and
that, if compelled so to do, it will be deprived of its property
without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
This Court has recently held that the usual permissive charter
of a railroad company does not oblige the company to operate its
railroad at a loss; that, where it is reasonably certain that
future operation will be at a loss, the company, in the absence of
contract obligation to continue, may cease, and if in such
circumstances the company be compelled by the state to continue to
operate at a loss, it would be deprived of its property without due
process of law.
Railroad Commission v. Eastern Texas R.
Co., 264 U. S. 79. The
state may not by any of its agencies disregard the prohibitions of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chicago, Burlington, etc., R. v.
Chicago, 166 U. S. 226,
166 U. S. 234;
Raymond v. Chicago Traction Co., 207 U. S.
20,
207 U. S. 36. We
are therefore required to
Page 281 U. S. 509
pass upon the merits of petitioner's claim.
Stearns v.
Minnesota, 179 U. S. 223,
179 U. S. 232;
Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17,
253 U. S.
22.
By an Act of the Georgia Legislature passed August 16, 1889
(Acts 1888-89, p. 211) the Collins Park & Belt Railroad Company
was incorporated and empowered to construct and operate street
railways in Atlanta, in other parts of Fulton county, and in De
Kalb and other counties. Subsequently its name was changed to the
Atlanta Rapid Transit Company. It applied for, and the Town of
Decatur by ordinance passed September 4, 1899, granted to it, a
"franchise" to construct and operate the line in question. The Act
does not specify the term of the company's charter, and there is
nothing in it or in the ordinance to fix the duration of the
carrier's obligation to operate the line. January 1, 1902, the
Georgia Railway & Electric Company was incorporated for the
term of 101 years, and was empowered by the Act under which it was
organized to acquire and operate street and suburban railways. Acts
1892, p. 37. On March 28, 1902, the Atlanta Rapid Transit Company
conveyed all its property to the last-mentioned company. March 3,
1903, the town of Decatur, by ordinance, granted the latter
permission to discontinue operation and remove one of its Decatur
lines upon the condition that it should continue to operate the
stretch of track here involved and "never charge more than five
cents for one fare" for the transportation above described. And
April 1, 1903, the town and the company made a contract by which
each agreed to do all the things required to be by it performed
under the terms of the ordinance. October 16, 1911, the Georgia
Railway & Power Company was incorporated as an interurban and
street railroad company for the term of 101 years, and January 1,
1912, the Railway & Electric Company leased all its lines of
railway and other property to the latter for a term of 999
years.
Page 281 U. S. 510
It may be assumed, as contended by petitioner, that, under the
state law (Code, § 2215) the charter of the Collins Park Company
expired August 16, 1919, 30 years after passage of the special Act,
and that it was not bound by its franchise to continue to operate
the line after that date.
See St. Clair County Turnpike Co. v.
Illinois, 96 U. S. 63,
96 U. S. 68. The
petitioner contends that the ordinance of September 4, 1899, was
the only franchise for the operation of the line in question, and
that the obligation to operate the line and maintain the contract
fare ended with the expiration of the charter of the Collins Park
Company.
But franchises for the construction and operation of street
railway lines are granted by the state. And January 1, 1902, the
state chartered the Georgia Railway & Electric Company. In this
case, the Supreme Court held (p. 709) that, under the state
constitution (Code, § 6448),
"all that towns and cities have to give to the construction of
passenger street railways within the limits of the same is the
consent of the corporate authorities."
And it held that, by the contract of April 1, 1903, the City of
Decatur gave its consent for the use of its streets by the Electric
Company. We accept that court's construction of the Acts of the
legislature and the ordinance and its decision as to the effect of
the contract of April 1, 1903. Upon the conveyance by the Atlanta
Rapid Transit Company, the system, including the Decatur line in
question, passed to the Georgia Railway & Electric Company, to
be operated under the franchise granted to that company by the Act
of the legislature under which it was incorporated. It is clear
that this franchise and the rate contract of April 1, 1903, are
still in force.
There is nothing in the ordinance or contract to indicate a
purpose to terminate the obligation of the carrier in respect of
the five-cent fare while it continues to operate the line as part
of its system under its present franchise (
Fort Smith Traction
Co. v. Bourland, 267 U. S.
330),
Page 281 U. S. 511
and the contract will continue to bind petitioner during the
period intended by the parties unless earlier altered by them or
relaxed by state authority (
Georgia Ry. Co. v. Decatur,
262 U. S. 432,
262 U. S.
438). The losses attributable to the stretch of track in
question and the five-cent fare are immaterial while the rate
contract continues.
St. Cloud Public Service Co. v. St.
Cloud, 265 U. S. 352,
265 U. S. 355.
Railroad Commission v. Los Angeles R. Co., 280 U.
S. 145,
280 U. S.
152.
Decree affirmed.