Reagan v. Farmers Loan Trust Co
Citation | 38 L.Ed. 1014,14 S.Ct. 1047,154 U.S. 362 |
Decision Date | 26 May 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 928,928 |
Parties | REAGAN et al. v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. et al |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
This was a suit by the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company against John H. Reagan, W. P. McLean, L. L. Foster (railroad commissioners of the state of Texas), C. A. Culberson (attorney general of the state), the International & Great Northern Railroad Company, and Thomas N. Campbell (receiver of that company), brought to restrain said railroad commissioners from enforcing certain rates and regulations prescribed by them for said company, and to restrain the attorney general from suing for penalties for failure to conform to such rates and obey such regulations. The railroad company filed an answer and a cross bill similar to complainant's bill, and praying substantially the same relief. The railroad commissioners and the attorney general filed answers, but afterwards withdrew their answers, and filed demurrers. Their demurrers were overruled, and a decree for defendants was rendered, making a temporary injunction previously granted (51 Fed. 529) perpetual. The railroad commissioners and the attorney general appealed.
On April 3, 1891, the legislature of the state of Texas passed an act to establish a railroad commission. The first section provides for the appointment and qualification of three persons to constitute the commission; the second, for the organization of the commission; while the third defines the powers and duties of the commission, and is as follows:
'(a) The said commission shall have power, and it shall be its duty, to fairly and justly classify and subdivide all freight and property of whatsoever character that may be transported over the railroads of this state into such general and special classes or subdivisions as may be found necessary and expedient.
'(b) The commission shall have power, and it shall be its duty, to fix to each class or subdivision of freight a reasonable rate for each railroad subject to this act for the transportation of each of said classes and subdivisions.
'(c) The classifications herein provided for shall apply to and be the same for all railroads subject to the provisions of this act.
'(d) The said commission may fix different rates for different railroads and for different lines under the same management, or for different parts of the same lines if found necessary to do justice, and may make rates for express companies different from the rates fixed for railroads.
'(e) The said commission shall have power, and it shall be its duty, to fix and establish for all or any connecting lines of railroad in this state reasonable joint rates of freight charges for the various classes of freight and cars that may pass over two or more lines of such railroads.
'(f) If any two or more connecting railroads shall fail to agree upon a fair and just division of the charges arising from the transportation of freights, passengers or cars over their lines, the commission shall fix the pro rata part of such charges to be received by each of said connecting lines.
'(g) Until the commission shall make the classifications and schedules of rates as herein provided for, and afterwards if they deem it advisable, they may make partial or special classifications for all or any of the railroads subject hereto, and fix the rates to be charged by such roads therefor; and such classifications and rates shall be put into effect in the manner provided for general classifications and schedules of rates.
'(h) The commission shall have power, and it shall be its duty from time to time, to alter, change, amend, or abolish any classification or rate established by it when deemed necessary; and such amended, altered, or new classifications or rates shall be put into effect in the same manner as the originals.
'(i) The commission may adopt and enforce such rules, regulations, and modes of procedure as it may deem proper to hear and determine complaints that may be made against the classifications or the rates, the rules, regulations, and determinations of the commission.
'(j) The commission shall make reasonable and just rates of charges for each railroad subject hereto for the use or transportation of loaded or empty cars on its road; and may establish for each railroad or for all railroads alike reasonable rates for the storing and handling of freight and for the use of cars not unloaded after forty-eight hours' notice to the consignee, not to include Sundays.
The first paragraph of the fourth section is in these words:
The remaining paragraphs give power to adopt rules of procedure. The fifth, sixth, and seventh sections are as follows:
notice.
Sections 8-13 contain special provisions which are not material to the consideration of any question presented in this case.
Section 14 reads:
Section 15 defines 'unjust discrimination,' and imposes a penalty of not less than $500, nor more than $5,000, upon any railroad company violating any provision of the section.
Section 16 is leveled against officers and agents of railroads, and imposes a penalty of not less than $100, nor more than $1,000, for certain offenses denounced therein.
Section 17 declares that any railroad company violating the provisions of the act shall be liable to the persons injured thereby for the damages sustained in consequence of such violation, and in case it is guilty of extortion or discrimination, as defined in the act, shall pay, in addition to such damages, to the person injured, a penalty of not less than $125, nor more than $500.
In sections 18 and 19 are further provisions as to penalties. The remaining sections—20 to 24, inclusive—contain matter of detail, which is unimportant in this case.
Three of the plaintiffs in error, Reagan, McLean, and Foster, were duly appointed and qualified as members of said railroad commission, and organized it on the 10th day of June, 1891. The other plaintiff in error, Culberson, is the attorney general of the state, who, by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Public Service Commission
......Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362, 14 S.Ct. 1047, 38 L.Ed. 1014; ......
-
McGrew v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
...Ct. 462, 702, 33 L. Ed. 970; Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 12 Sup. Ct. 400, 36 L. Ed. 176; Reagan v. Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 14 Sup. Ct. 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014; St. Louis, etc., R. R. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 15 Sup. Ct. 484, 39 L. Ed. 567; Covington, etc., Turnpike Co. v. ......
-
State v. Superior Court of King County
......307, 6 S.Ct. 334, 388, 1191, 29. L.Ed. 636; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., . 154 U.S. 362, 14 S.Ct. 1047, 38 ......
-
Spring Val. Water Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
...... views have been approved and sustained by the later. decisions. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., . 154 U.S. 362, 397, 399, 14 Sup.Ct. 1047, ......
-
Table of Cases
...Raymond Motor Transp., Inc. v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429, 98 S.Ct. 787, 54 L.Ed.2d 664 (1978), 871, 875 Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362, 14 S.Ct. 1047, 38 L.Ed. 1014 (1894), Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969), 1458, 1483-84, 1......
-
Sorting Out the Mess: International Smuggling Schemes, Foreign Policy, and a Little Thing Called Ju
...Trapilo, 130 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 1997). [241]. See Cleveland, 531 U.S. at 23. [242]. See generally, Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362, 364 (1894) (holding that the right to penalties for violation of a statute is a property right). [243]. Brief for Petitioners at 35, United ......
-
To Sue and Be Sued: Capacity and Immunity of American Indian Nations
...99. Hans, 134 U.S. at 17-18. 100. See JACOBS, supra note 46, at 131-38. 101. See id. at 132-35. 102. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co., 154 U.S. 362, 390 (1894). See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (modern application of the 103. 209 U.S. 123 (1908). 104. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123......
-
Economic Rights: the Contracts and Takings Clauses
...for Temporary Regulatory Takings, 42 Kansas L. Rev. 201 (1993). [55] 538 U.S. 216, 239-41 (2003). [56] 166 U.S. 226, 241 (1897). [57] 154 U.S. 362, 399 (1894). See generally John E. Fee, The Takings Clause as a Comparative Right, 76 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1003, 1003 (2003). [58] On all these point......