New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Flynn

The decision of this case depends upon the construction to be given to the following provision contained in § 34, chapter 565, Laws of 1890, viz.: “ Ro preference for the transaction of the business of a common carrier upon its cars or in its depots or buildings, or upon its grounds, shall be granted by any railroad corporation, to any one of two or more persons, associations or corporations competing in the same business or in the business of transporting property for themselves or others.” The defendants claim that under the statutory provision above quoted, they have the fight to go upon the grounds of plaintiff described in the complaint, for the purpose of soliciting employment in their business as hackmen, of passengers arriving on trains on plaintiff’s road, and that plaintiff cannot exclude them therefrom.

It is clear that the defendants have no right upon plaintiff’s premises unless such a right is conferred by the above quoted statutory provision. They do not claim to go thereon for the purpose of transacting any business with the plaintiff as a common carrier or otherwise. They wish to enter on said premises for the purpose of contracting with passengers leaving plaintiff’s depot. They do not desire to employ plaintiff to carry passengers or freight or to make any contract whatever with it. They wish free access to the premises in question for the transaction of business with other parties. The order from which the appeal is taken was not intended to prevent the defendants from leaving passengers or freight at plaintiff’s depot or from taking passengers or freight therefrom. But it prohibits defendants’ hacks and employes from remaining on plaintiff’s premises—from making such premises a standing ground—for the purpose of soliciting patronage while so engaged in seeking employment on said premises, they having no contractual relations with plaintiff or its passengers. Does the statutory provision above quoted prevent the plaintiff, under the circumstances, from controlling the use of its grounds ? Under a somewhat similar statutory provision, and in a similar case, the supreme court of Massachusetts in Old Colony R. R. Co. v. Tripp, 147 Mass., 35 , held the following doctrine: “ The defendant was

While the question involved is not free from doubt, and the Massachusetts statute differs somewhat from ours, we are inclined to adopt the views above quoted as applicable to this case and as expressing our views thereon. We should regret to be compelled to give any other construction to the statute in question. It would be unfortunate if railroad corporations, as against hackmen, should have no control over their premises. A construction of the statute is to be regretted that would give, in our cities and villages, all the hackmen of the place the absolute right to intrude upon and make a stand of the premises of railroad corporations for the purpose of" soliciting passengers. That, in fact, allows a mob of hackmen around railroad depots and prevents a railroad corporation from adopting proper regulations to protect its passengers from undue solicitation and annoyance when leaving its grounds. See, also, Jinks v. Coleman, 2 Sumner, 221; Barney v. O. B. & H. Steamboat Co., 67 N. Y., 301 -303. The meaning of the statutory provision under consideration is, as above suggested, not entirely clear; but we think it should be construed to mean,, that no preference for the transaction of the business of a common carrier upon its cars or in its depots or buildings, or upon its ground, shall be given by railroad corporations to any oñe of two- or more persons competing in the same business or in the business of transporting property, while having contractual relations with said railroad corporation as a common carrier.

Since writing the above we have been referred to the very able and exhaustive opinion of Justice Green in the case of N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Sheeley et al. (not reported), in which the learned justice reaches a conclusion sustaining an action against hackmen similar to this.

Herrick, J., concurs ; Mayham, P. J., not acting.