Norfolk and Western Railway Company v. Conley, Attorney General of the State of West Virginia
Headline: West Virginia's two-cent-per-mile passenger fare law struck down as confiscatory, blocking the State from forcing railroads to carry passengers at or below cost and protecting carriers' revenue.
Holding:
- Blocks enforcement of West Virginia’s two-cent passenger fare against the company.
- Prevents states from forcing railroads to carry passengers at or below cost.
- Requires clear evidence before a state can impose deeply reduced passenger rates.
Summary
Background
A railroad company sued after West Virginia's 1907 law set a maximum passenger fare at two cents per mile. The company ran under that rate for about two years and then challenged the law as violating the State constitution and the federal Constitution because it imposed penalties, treated railroads by class, and reduced passenger revenue to confiscatory levels. A state circuit court found the rate not confiscatory for this company, the state high court refused an appeal, and the company brought the case here.
Reasoning
The key question was whether the State could fix a low passenger fare when that fare, considered on the passenger business alone, left only a nominal return or did not cover cost. The Court explained that while states have broad power to set reasonable rates and may classify different kinds of traffic, they cannot require carriers to transport a class of service at less than cost or for a nominal reward. The passenger business was treated as a separate department with its own equipment and costs. After reviewing both the company's and the State’s detailed accounting efforts, the Court concluded the two-cent fare left no adequate margin and could not be sustained.
Real world impact
The Court reversed the state judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, effectively preventing enforcement of the two-cent cap as applied to this railroad. The decision limits a State’s ability to impose very low fixed fares without clear proof that those fares are reasonable and not confiscatory. Parties seeking to uphold such low rates must present convincing accounting support.
Dissents or concurrances
One Justice, Pitney, dissented from the Court’s judgment, indicating disagreement about the result.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?