Southern Express Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountian & Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1882
• Citation: 10 F. 210
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Parties: SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. v. ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RY. CO. [1] SAME v. MEMPHIS & LITTLE ROCK R. CO. Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas. DINSMORE, President, etc., v. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RY. CO. (Circuit Court, D. Kansas. SAME v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FEE R. CO. (Circuit Court, D. Kansas. SAME v. DENVER & RIO GRANDE R. CO. Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

10 F. 210

SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. v. ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RY. CO. ^[1]

SAME v. MEMPHIS & LITTLE ROCK R. CO.

Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas.

DINSMORE, President, etc., v. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RY. CO.

(Circuit Court, D. Kansas.

SAME v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FEE R. CO.

(Circuit Court, D. Kansas.

SAME v. DENVER & RIO GRANDE R. CO.

Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri.

February 21, 1882

F. E Whitfield, for the plaintiff in the case of the Southern Express Company v. Missouri & Little Rock Railway Company.

Clarence A. Seward, for the Adams Express Company in all three of the cases; and--

George F. Edmunds, John A. Campbell, and Clarence A. Seward, for the plaintiffs generally.

Gov John C. Brown appeared for the defendants generally.

Jas. O Broadhead and Thomas J. Portis, for the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company.

B. C Brown, for the Missouri & Little Rock Railway Company.

G. W Peck, for the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company.

Lyman K. Bars, for the Denver & Rio Grande Railway Company.

Thomas J. Portis, for the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company.

In the case of the Southern Express Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. the plaintiff avers, in substance, that it is a corporation organized under the laws of Georgia, and has for a long time been engaged in doing an express business; that prior to the eleventh of May, 1880, it had been doing business as an express company, on the defendant's road, under a contract which the defendant was at liberty to rescind; that on the eleventh day of May, 1880, the defendant, through its president, notified the complainant by letter that after the twenty-sixth inst. it could not do business over defendant's road; that the plaintiff is lawfully entitled to demand and to receive the same facilities of transportation on said road as may be accorded by defendant to itself, and that it is entitled to deductions for accessorial service.

The bill concludes with the following prayers:

(1) That during the pendency of the suit the defendant may be restrained from interfering with the facilities now enjoyed by the Southern Express Company, nol accorded it; from interfering with its messengers; from refusing to receive and transport, in the same manner as defendant is now doing, the express matter and messengers of the Southern Express Company, or interfering with its business or present relations with defendant in any manner whatever, so long as the express company is willing and ready to pay according to all legal rates therefor.

(2) That if, during the pendency of the suit, any dispute should arise between the parties as to what is reasonable compensation for transportation, the complainant may be permitted to bring the matter before the court for its decision.

(3) That defendant may be required to transport the express matter, safes and messengers of the Southern Express Company by the same trains, and to the same accommodation, as it may transport its own express matter; that it be required to transport express matter for statutory tolls and compensation, as provided by law; that defendant may be required to make a reasonable rebate or reduction from its charges to the Southern Express Company, to be fixed by decree of court, by reason of its performance of accessorial service as specified.

(4) That a permanent injunction may issue to the same purport and effect as is prayed in regard to a preliminary injunction.

The defendant, in its answer, denies the material allegations of the bill, and avers:

That since the first of June, A.D. 1880, it has formed and organized an express department of its road, and has been and is now receiving and transporting over its lines, and delivering, freight commonly known as express freight, as it has a right to do; that the express business is a legitimate business of defendant; that it can serve the public without the intervention of the Southern Express Company, and can serve it as well, and that it is unjust to the stockholders of the company to permit a third party to make use of the property of defendant and the services of its employes to reap the profit for the transportation of freight which belongs to it; that the compensation it has received from the plaintiff for transportation over its lines during the term of the existence of the contract was inadequate for the service performed; that the conduct of complainant in the management of its business, its intervention between defendants and its customers, its taking a large amount of freight which was not properly express freight; its continued violation of its contracts under which it was permitted to do an express business, and its concealment and withholding true and correct reports of the weights of express freights transported over defendant's line of road, occasioned great damage to defendant, and compelled the termination of said contract; that as a common carrier it owes to complainant no other duty than to any other person desiring to transport freight over its road; that defendant does not claim the right to exclude the transportation of express matter of complainant over its road, and has always been willing, and is now willing, to transport any express matter in spaces in its cars selected by itself, and under the supervision, care, and control of its own employes, and denies that complainant has any right to have allotted to itself any particular space in defendant's cars, or to permit its messengers to take charge of its express freight.

The plaintiff filed a general replication in the usual form. Substantially the...