company, escape ultimate liability for the safety of the equipment thus provided.2

119. The expansion of present facilities.-In the case of the municipal service-such as waterworks, gas plants, electric plants, and telephone systemsthere are sufficient authorities to the effect that such companies must, to speak in general, be prepared to extend their system throughout their district to meet the reasonable demands of the growing community.3 If this involves the acquisition of new sources of supply, or a laying of pipes in new streets, or extension of wires to other streets, or the construction of new exchanges,-all these new facilities must be provided to meet the expansion of the business within the community to the service of which the company has committed itself. A reasonable time to make such extensions after the demand has become apparent should be allowed. It has been well said that this obligation to expand is usually dependent upon the existence of a reasonable expectation that the consumption shall become within a reasonable time sufficient to warrant the necessary preliminary expenditure. This undertaking to serve a community should not lay the company open to outrageous demands in individual cases, but only to such service as the community considered as a whole may demand. And in the meantime the company

2 Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451.

8 Pocatello Water Co. v. Standley, 7 Idaho 155, 61 Pac. 518.

4 State ex rel. Gwynn v. Citizens' Telephone Co., 61 S. C. 83, 39 S. E. 257, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

5 Public Service Corp. v. American Lighting Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 122, 57 Atl. 482.

must use its existing plant to best advantage, doing the best for applicants that is possible under the circumstances.

120. Equipment for expected business.-What the law requires of one engaged in public service is to furnish facilities sufficient for the usual course of his business, so far as by ordinary forethought he may anticipate it. Where a railroad has provided itself with more cars per mile of track than railroads operating in that territory usually have, and has more cars under contract for early delivery, its excuse is obvious in the absence of other evidence. Even after the need of more equipment becomes apparent it should be realized that it is a long time after orders for rolling stock are placed before it is delivered. There are limitations upon this rule that equipment must be provided to meet expected demands. It is not possible on the basis upon which street car lines are run to provide a seat for every passenger at the rush hours. Nor would it be wise to require a granger railroad to buy cars enough to handle the grain crop in the same week that it is started toward market.10 The law of public service does not ask outrageous things; a community should not expect a higher grade of service than it is willing to pay 121. No provision for expected business.-If the press of business might have been provided against

for.

• Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Kelly, 160 Fed. 316, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

7 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Clay Ginn Co., 77 Ark. 357.

8 Mauldin v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 73 S. C. 9, 52 S. E. 677. North Jersey St. Ry. Co. v. Jersey City, 75 N. J. L. 349, 67 Atl. 1072. 10 State ex rel. Crandall v. Chicago B. & Q. R. R., 72 Neb. 542, 101 N. W. 23, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

11

by reasonable diligence of the carrier, there is no such excuse for its failure to provide adequate facilities. The sufficiency of accommodations must be determined by the amount of freight and the number of passengers ordinarily transported on any given line of road. The amount of business ordinarily done by the road is the only proper measure of its obligation to furnish transportation.12 If, then, the abnormal demand should have been foreseen by a reasonable management, it is in default unless it has made every effort to meet the emergency. Thus in the conduct of passenger business, when it is known that some exhibition or other event will bring together a large number of people, the transportation lines should make seasonable allotment of facilities to meet the extraordinary demand at this point.13 In a late case it was held that a railroad company which had obligated itself to furnish refrigerator cars to transport garden truck to market could not escape liability for breach of that duty upon the ground that the crop was unusually large, if it was no larger than might reasonably have been expected from the acreage planted-knowledge of which the railroad company either had, or had the means of obtaining.14

122. Establishment of railroad stations. It is everywhere agreed that the state may by statute establish railroad stations wherever the public need

11 Ballentine v. No. Missouri R. R. Co., 40 Mo. 491, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

12 Montana W. & S. Ry. Co. v. Morley, 198 Fed. 991.

13 Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Dumser, 161 Ill. 190, 43 N. E. 698.

14 Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Blum Co., 88 Miss. 180, 40 So. 748.

requires them.15 The more usual method of exercising the legislative power in this regard is by delegation of the determination of the necessity for the establishment of new stations, or the propriety of changing existing stations, to a regulating commission.16 Of the constitutionality of such legislation and the consequent force of such orders there can be no doubt. But many courts still believe that, without legislative interposition in some form, the railroad companies are free to do as they please in these respects. There are, however, as even these courts realize, principles of law governing this matter so clear that even legislation will be set aside if outrageous. When a station was ordered in a place where it was obvious there was practically no business whatsoever, nor any prospect of any being developed, the court set the statute aside." But it is plainly within the regulating power over public services for the state commission to order the establishment of a station where a railroad is running through a thickly settled region for many miles without making a stop, especially if the residents of such territory have no other adequate facilities.18

123. Power to order stations.-According to the conservative view relating to the establishment of stations the courts will not presume to order the opening of stations, the decision as to the number of stations requisite being left to the discretion of

15 Mayor v. Norwich & W. R. R. Co., 109 Mass. 103.

16 Railroad Commissioners v. Portland & O. C. R. Co., 63 Me. 269.

17 Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. v. State, 91 Ark. 358, 121 S. W. 284.

18 Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. R. v. Railroad Commission, 136 Wis.

146, 116 N. W. 905.

the directors of the company.19 This was the attitude taken in the leading case in the Supreme Court of the United States where the court refused to order the reopening of a station which had been closed in the face of a flourishing community, and moved to a point several miles farther on.20 On the other hand, in the leading case in Illinois, the court without aid of special legislation itself ordered the opening of a station for a community of 1,800 inhabitants through which a railroad was running without stopping.21 In a more extreme case still the court has recently ordered two railroads to join in the construction of a union station.22

124. Arrangements for delivering freight.-All the law discussed in this topic is as applicable to freight stations as to passenger stations. The question is whether the existing freight stations are so situated as to meet the reasonable demands of the shippers of the district.23 There are exceptional businesses where the commercial necessity for private switches is recognized by the common law to be overruling. This is peculiarly true of those who ship or receive freight in bulk. Thus private switches should be permitted at grain elevators, coal tipples, ore smelters and oil tanks, provided the shipments from them are of reasonable size.24 And the same is true of those who are shippers and receivers

19 Jacquelin v. Erie R. R. Co., 69 N. J. Eq. 432, 61 Atl. 18.

20 Northern Pacific Railroad v. Washington, 142 U. S. 492, 12 Sup. Ct. 283. 21 People v. Chicago & A. R. R. Co., 130 Ill. 175, 22 N. E. 857.

22 Concord & M. R. R. v. Boston & M. R. R., 67 N. H. 464, 41 Atl. 263, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

23 People v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 52 N. Y. Supp. 850.

24 Chicago & N. W. R. R. v. People, 56 Ill. 365.