Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. People ex rel. Attorney General

Citations

• 120 Ill. 200

Syllabus

<p>1. Raiizroads—duty to keep track in repair, and to furnish facilities for business. It is the clutr of a railway company to keep its road in a reasonable state of repair and in a safe condition, and to so operate it as to afford adequate facilities for the transaction of such freight and passenger business as may be offered. But when the business of the road does not pay the current expenses, the court will not attempt to enforce the performance of this duty by mandamus.</p> <p>2. Mandamus — whether the proper remedy, generally. The writ of mandamus will not be granted, in any case, where it is clear that it will prove unavailing, as, when the thing sought is physically impossible to be done, or when, from extrinsic causes, it has become so, or when performance, though not absolutely impossible, is, from any cause, not within the power of the defendant. Whenever it is apparent that the defendant, is unable to perform the act sought, the writ will not be awarded.</p> <p>3. Same—to compel a railway company to perform specific duties — and of the remedy when the. company is unable to perform. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel a railway company to perform any specific duty which it owes to the public, as owner or operator of its road. It may be compelled to replace a part of its track which it has wrongfully taken up; also, to operate its road as a continuous line, to compel it to build a bridge, or to-run daily trains.</p> <p>4. -But this remedy will not lie, in the absence of a statutory duty', to compel a railway company to increase the number of trains on its road, or to run daily a particular number of trains over its road.</p> <p>5. And if a railway company becomes wholly unable to discharge the duties it owes to the public and which the law has imposed upon it, a proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto is the proper remedy, and not mandamus.</p>