Charles Cotting v. Godard 14, 15 1899
Decision Date | 26 March 1900 |
Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
Parties | CHARLES U. COTTING and Francis Lee Higginson, Appts. , v. A. A. GODARD, as Attorney General of the State of Kansas Kansas City Stock-Yards Company, et al. Argued November 14, 15, 1899. Ordered for reargument |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In March, 1897, Charles U. Cotting, a citizen of the state of Massachusetts, filed in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas a bill of complaint against the Kansas City Stock-Yards Company, a corporation of the state of Kansas, and certain officers of that company, and Louis C. Boyle, attorney general of the state of Kansas. A few days later Francis Lee Higginson, a citizen of the state of Massachusetts, filed a bill of complaint in the same court and against the same parties.
These suits were subsequently ordered by the court to be consolidated, and were thereafter proceeded in as one.
The plaintiffs respectively alleged that they were stockholders of the Kansas City Stock-Yards Company, and that the suits were brought in their own behalf and that of other stockholders having a like interest, who might thereafter join in the prosecution thereof. The main purpose of the suits was to have declared invalid a certain act of the legislature of the state of Kansas approved March 3, 1897, entitled 'An Act Defining What shall Constitute Public Stock Yards, Defining the Duties of the Person or Persons Operating the Same, and Regulating All Charges thereof, and Removing Restrictions in the Trade of Dead Animals, and Providing Penalties for Violations of This Act.'
A temporary restraining order was granted, and subsequently a motion for a preliminary injunction was made. Pending that motion the court appointed a special master, with power to take testimony and report the same, with his findings, as to all matters and things in issue upon the hearing of the preliminary injunction prayed for. 79 Fed. 679. On August 24, 1897, the special master filed his report. On October 4, 1897, the motion for a preliminary injunction was heard on affidavits, the master's report, exceptions thereto on behalf of both parties, and arguments of counsel. The motion was refused and the restraining order, which had remained in force in the meantime, was set aside. 82 Fed. 839.
A stipulation was thereupon entered into that the defendants should forthwith file their answers to the bills; that replications thereto should be immediately filed; and that the cases thus put at issue should be heard on final hearing, upon the pleadings, proofs, master's report, and exhibits, without further testimony from either party.
On October 28, 1897, after argument, the court dismissed the bills of complaint. 82 Fed. 850. In the opinion of Circuit Judge Thayer there was the following order, which was also embodied in the final decree:
On November 4, 1897, an appeal was duly taken and allowed to this court.
Subsequently, Louis C. Boyle's term of office as attorney general having expired, his successor, A. A. Godard, was substituted as a party defendant.
The act of the legislature of the state of Kansas is in the following terms:
Laws of Kansas 1897, chap. 240, p. 448.
Messrs. A. H. Horton, Wm. D. Guthrie, and B. P. Waggener for appellants.
Messrs. A. A. Godard, B. H. Tracy, David Martin, and L. C. Boyle for appellees.
Mr. Justice Brewer, after making the above statement, delivered the following opinion, and announced the conclusion and judgment of the court:
The learned circuit judge, in deciding the case, appreciated the importance of the questions involved, and, although denying the relief sought by the plaintiffs, exercised his power of continuing the restraining order until such time as these ques- tions could be determined. Twice has this case been argued before us. We have had the benefit of able arguments and elaborate briefs of distinguished counsel. That the questions are difficult of solution no one reading the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGrew v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
...42 L. Ed. 819; San Diego Land Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, 19 Sup. Ct. 804, 43 L. Ed. 1154; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S. 79, 22 Sup. Ct. 30, 46 L. Ed. 92; Stanislaus Co. v. San Joaquin, etc., Co., 192 U. S. 201, 24 Sup. Ct. 241, 48 L. Ed. 406; Ex parte Young, 20......
-
Maine Central R. Co. v. BMWE
...one, citing McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79, 36 S.Ct. 498, 60 L.Ed. 899 (1916); Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U.S. 79, 22 S.Ct. 30, 46 L.Ed. 92 (1901); Atchison, T. & S.F.R.R. v. Matthews, 174 U.S. 96, 104, 19 S.Ct. 609, 612, 43 L.Ed. 909 (1899) (dicta). ......
-
Spring Val. Water Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
...... through the gravel, and from this source 15,000,000 gallons. of water are daily sent to San Francisco. ... 362, 399, 14 Sup.Ct. 1047, 38 L.Ed. 1014; Cotting v. Kansas. City Stockyards Co., 183 U.S. 79, 87, 22 ...The prices paid for. Alameda lands since 1899 range from $10.06 per acre for a. very large tract to $512 ......
-
Continental Life Ins. & Inv. Co. v. Hattabaugh
...... (Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, supra; Cotting v. Kansas City Stockyards Co., 183 U.S. 79, 22 S.Ct. 30, ... Cal. 238, 27 P. 604; Crabb v. State, 88 Ga. 584, 15. S.E. 455; Henderson v. Koenig, 168 Mo. 356, 68 S.W. ......
-
Coal Price Regulation and the Constitution
...domain.&dquo; The sixth and most recent case, or In the fourth case, Cotting v. Kansas rather cases, involving price regulation City (183 U. S. 79), decided in 1901, are known as the rent cases. They are late Mr. Justice Brewer, delivering the Bloclc v. Hirsh (256 U. S. 134) and opinion of ......