Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Vosburg
Citation | 238 U.S. 56,59 L.Ed. 1199,35 S.Ct. 675 |
Decision Date | 01 June 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 189,189 |
Parties | ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. J. B. VOSBURG |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Gardiner Lathrop, Robert Dunlap, William R. Smith, and William Osmond for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Arthur M. Jackson and Wilber E. Broadie for defendant in error.
The Federal question involved in this case is concisely stated in the opening paragraph of the opinion of the supreme court of Kansas (89 Kan. 114, 130 Pac. 667), whose judgment we have under review:
Upon a review of certain decisions of this court, viz., Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. ed. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 43 L. ed. 909, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; Fidelity Mut. L. Asso. v. Mettler, 185 U. S. 308, 46 L. ed. 922, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 662, and Farmers' & M. Ins. Co. v. Dobney, 189 U. S. 301, 47 L. ed. 821, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 565, the state court held (p. 130), that since the act in question is a police regulation prescribing duties properly enforceable by penalties in the form of per diem forfeits and attorney fees recoverable in suitable actions, and because of the control of railroad companies over their cars, their capacity to disturb and obstruct trade, and the helplessness of shippers when cars are carelessly or arbitrarily withheld, railroad companies might properly be placed in a class by themselves for the purpose of securing sufficient car service, and that the equal protection of the law required no more than that all railway companies should be penalized alike. The court, in conclusion, said:
The enactment in question is commonly called the 'reciprocal' or 'mutual' demurrage law. (82 Kan. 260, 108 Pac. 137 85 Kan. 282, 116 Pac. 906.) It provides that a railway company failing to furnish cars upon proper application shall pay, to the party applying, '$5 per day for each car failed to be furnished as exemplary damages, . . . and all actual damages that such applicant may sustain for each car failed to be furnished, together with reasonable attorney fees.' At the same time it requires the applicant to load the cars within forty-eight hours after they are placed, [Gen. Stat. 1909, §§ 7203, 7204.]
We agree that this legislation is properly to be regarded as a police regulation, and in that respect differs from the act that was under consideration in the Ellis Case, supra, which simply imposed a penalty upon railroad corporations for a failure to pay certain debts. But we cannot at all agree that a police regulation is not, like any other law, subject to the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment. Nothing to that effect was held or intimated in any of the cases referred to. The constitutional guaranty entitles all persons and corporations within the jurisdiction of the state to the protection of equal laws, in this as in other departments of legislation. It does not prevent classification,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In Re Seven Barrels of Wine, in Re
...... federal Constitution. See Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U.S. 56, 35 ......
-
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
......Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U.S. 56, 35 S. ... dissolution of the charter of the parent company and the creation of new corporations to continue ......
-
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
...... accomplished by the legislation. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U.S. 56, 35 ... parent company and the creation of new corporations to. ......
-
Mills v. State of Me.
...does not violate the equal protection guaranty, but "a mere arbitrary selection" does); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U.S. 56, 62, 35 S.Ct. 675, 677, 59 L.Ed. 1199 (1915) (same). The scope and thrust of such decisions indicate that Equal Protection jurisprudence is not......