L. Singer & Sons v. Union Pac. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 125.,125. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
| Parties | L. SINGER & SONS et al. v. UNION PAC. R. CO. |
Ruby D. Garrett, John S. Cannon, Fred Ruark, and Spurgeon L. Smithson, all of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.
Watson, Ess, Groner, Barnett & Whittaker, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
Marcy K. Brown, Jr., Asst. City Counselor, of Kansas City, Mo., for intervener.
Plaintiffs, alleging themselves to be engaged in or directly interested in or connected with, the business of buying and selling at wholesale and retail, fruits, vegetables and other food products within and adjacent to the City Market of Kansas City, Missouri, seek to restrain the defendant, a railroad company, from constructing certain tracks, characterized in the complaint as "extensions", connecting defendant's present railway lines with a proposed new City Market about to be constructed in Kansas City, Kansas, not far from the present City Market of Kansas City, Missouri, without first obtaining a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing the construction of the proposed new tracks. It is alleged that the proposed construction by defendant will destroy plaintiffs' business and investment, create a rural market without producing additional transportation business, result in unnecessary duplication of transportation facilities, unnecessarily divert transportation to defendant from other railroad companies, create destructive competition and result in needless expenditure of monies by defendant. For all of these reasons it is alleged that the property rights of plaintiffs and the general public will be adversely affected, a material change in the transportation situation created, and an unnecessary burden imposed upon interstate commerce.
The City of Kansas City, Missouri, has filed a motion requesting leave to intervene as a party plaintiff upon the ground that it is entitled to jointly maintain this action as a "party in interest" under the Act of February 4, 1887, 24 Stat. 379, entitled "An Act to Regulate Commerce" as amended by the Interstate Commerce Act of February 28, 1920, c. 91, § 402, U.S.C.A. Title 49, § 1, par. (20), and the Judicial Code, Secs. 212, 213, as amended Title 28 U.S.C. A. § 45a. The motion to intervene alleges movant is actually interested in the subject matter of this proceeding because it has voted one-half million dollars in bonds for the construction of a new City Market now under construction and which will be injuriously affected by the establishment and construction of the new City Market in Kansas City, Kansas, and the construction to it by defendant of the so-called unauthorized railway "extensions". It is further alleged that defendant's threatened action to construct the unauthorized extensions will divert much business from many old and prosperous businesses located at the Kansas City,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L. Singer & Sons v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States, Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. 2 Ibid., Rule 12(d). 3 26 F.Supp. 721. 4 The plaintiffs rely upon: Western Pacific California R. Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 284 U.S. 47, 52 S.Ct. 56, 76 L.Ed. 160; Detroit & M.......
-
Singer Sons v. Union Pac Co Kansas City, Mo v. Singer Sons
...§ 1, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1, petitioners, by bill filed December 30, 1938, in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, 26 F.Supp. 721, asked a decree enjoining respondent from constructing or operating an alleged The bill describes them thus:—'Plaintiffs are engaged in the b......
- Crim v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co.