Louisville & N.R. Co. v. McChord
Decision Date | 16 July 1900 |
Citation | 103 F. 216 |
Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Kentucky |
Parties | LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. McCHORD et al. LOUISVILLE, H. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. SAME. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. SAME. SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. SAME. |
Helm Bruce & Helm and Walker D. Hines, for complainant Louisville & N. R. Co.
Helm Bruce & Helm, for complainant Louisville, H. & St. L. Ry. Co.
Humphrey Burnett & Humphrey, for complainant Southern Ry. Co.
Wadsworth & Cochran, for complainant Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
R. J Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Kohn, Baird & Spindle, and Lewis McQuown, for defendants.
These actions have for a common object the prevention of the threatened enforcement of an act of the general assembly of this state which became a law on the 10th day of March, 1900, and, if constitutional, became effective 90 days thereafter. Including its title, the act is as follows: 'An act to prevent railroad companies or corporations owning and operating a line or lines of railroad, and its officers, agents and employes, from charging, collecting or receiving extortionate freight or passenger rates in this commonwealth, and to further increase and define the duties and powers of the railroad commission in reference thereto, and prescribing the manner of enforcing the provisions of this act and penalties for the violation of its provisions.
'Be it enacted by the general assembly of the commonwealth of Kentucky:
The complainants severally seek the order of this court enjoining and restraining the defendants, who compose the railroad commission of the state, from carrying into effect any of the provisions of the act, upon the ground that it violates the constitution of the United States-- First, in authorizing the commission to fix rates in certain instances upon interstate commerce; second, in authorizing the commission to deprive them of their property without due process of law; third, in authorizing the commission to take from them the equal protection of the law; fourth, authorizing the commission to take their property for public use without just compensation; fifth, in authorizing all of these things to be done by a body of executive officers who are not a court, and who are without judicial powers; and, sixth, as to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, by authorizing the defendants to fix rates different from those established by the unrepealable charter provisions of that company, thereby impairing the obligations of its contract with the state of Kentucky.
When the act is closely analyzed, it is found to provide: First, that either when complaint shall be made to the railroad commission accusing any railroad or corporation of charging, collecting, or receiving extortionate freight or passenger rates over its line of railroad in this state, or when that commission shall receive information or have reason to believe that such rates are being charged, collected, or received, it shall be, second, its duty to 'hear and determine' the matter as speedily as possible; third, the company complained of shall be given not less than 10 days' notice by letter, mailed to an officer or employe of such company, stating the nature of the complaint or matter to be investigated, and the time and place of hearing it; fourth, the commission shall hear such statements, arguments, or evidence offered by the parties as the commission may deem relevant, and may take the depositions of witnesses; fifth, should the commission determine that the company is or has been guilty of extortion, it shall fix a just and reasonable rate of toll or compensation which said company may charge, collect, or receive for like services thereafter rendered; sixth, the rate so fixed shall be entered in its order book, and a copy mailed to an officer, agent, or employe of the railroad company affected thereby, and after 10 days thereafter shall be in full force until changed by the commission on the record; seventh, should any such railroad, its officer, agent, or employe, thereafter charge, collect, or receive a greater rate of compensation for like services than those thus fixed for it by the commission, such railroad, its agent or employe, shall be guilty of extortion, and shall be fined as provided in the act; and, eight, of the offense of extortion as thus defined, the various circuit courts of the state shall have jurisdiction by indictment.
The supreme court of the United States in many cases has announced certain fundamental principles which have a more or less direct bearing upon the questions involved in these cases. In Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 458, 14 Sup.Ct. 467, 33 L.Ed. 981, the court used this language:
In Reagan v. Trust Co., 154 U.S. 399, 14 Sup.Ct. 1055, 38 L.Ed. 1024, Mr. Justice Brewer, speaking for the court, said ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Siler
......Stone, and Wm. G. Dearing, for. complainant. . . Jas. Breathitt, Atty. Gen., Jno. Francis Lockett, Asst. Atty. Gen., and McChord, Hines & Norman, for defendants. . . Before. WARRINGTON, Circuit Judge, and SANFORD and DENISON, District. judges. . . ......
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine
...... another question. Smith v. Bivens (C.C.) 56 F. 352;. Butchers' & Drovers' Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 67 F. 35, 40, 14 C.C.A. 290; Nashville, etc.,. Ry. Co. v. McConnell (C.C.) 82 F. ... . This. question is very elaborately discussed in Louisville &. N.R. Co. v. McChord (C.C.) 103 F. 216. The Kentucky. statute there involved, excluding the fact that the Kentucky. ......
-
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama
...... Railway Company, the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis. Railway Company, and the Louisville & Nashville, Railroad. Company, all foreign corporations and the Western Railway of. Alabama, the ...v. Texas Pacific. Railway Co. (C.C.) 51 F. 529; L. & St. L.R.R. Co. v. McChord (C.C.) 103 F. 216; Consolidated Gas Co. v. Mayer (C.C.) 146 F. 150; Ex parte Wood (C.C.) 155 F. ......
-
George W. Sabre v. Rutland Railroad Company And Central Vermont Railway Co.
...... 741; People v. Mallary , 195 Ill. 582, 88. Am. St. Rep. 212, 63 N.E. 508; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. McChord , 103 F. 216; Shoultz v. McPheeters , 79 Ind. 373; In re Dumford , ......