Cargill Company v. State of Minnesota Railroad Warehouse Commission
Decision Date | 05 March 1901 |
Docket Number | No. 116,116 |
Parties | W. W. CARGILL COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. RAILROAD & WAREHOUSE COMMISSION |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Ralph Whelan for plaintiff in error.
Mr. W. B. Douglass submitted the case for defendant in error, and Mr. W. J. Donahower was with him on the brief.
The present action was brought in one of the courts of Minnesota, in the name of the state, against the W. W. Cargill Company, a Wisconsin corporation. The relief sought was a decree perpetually enjoining the defendant from operating a certain elevator and warehouse owned by it, situated on the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway Company, in the village of Lanesboro, Minnesota, until it should have obtained a license from the railroad & warehouse commission of that state.
The suit is based on a statute of Minnesota, approved April 16th, 1895, and entitled 'An Act to Regulate the Receipt, Storage, and Shipment of Grain at Elevators and Warehouses on the Right of Way of Railroads, Depot Grounds, and Other Lands used in Connection with Such Line of Railway in the State of Minnesota, at Stations and Sidings, Other than at Terminal Points.' Gen. Laws, Minn. 1895, chap. 148, p. 313.
It seems to be necessary to a clear understanding of the case, and to the disposition of some of the questions presented for consideration, that the entire act be examined. It is therefore given in full in the margin.1
We here give only the first and second sections of the act:
The complaint alleged that the elevator was used by the defendant company in connection with the railway for the receiving and shipping of wheat and other grains transported over the lines of the railway company; was essential and necessary to the railway company in order promptly, safely, and properly to handle grains received by it for shipment; and constituted, in that respect, a necessary adjunct of the railroad.
The facts upon which the case was determined are set forth in a finding based upon the stipulation of the parties, and may be summarized as follows:
On April 16th, 1895, and for more than a year prior thereto, the defendant company was engaged in the business of buying, selling, and dealing in grain,—its principal office and place of business being in the city of La Crosse, Wisconsin. It owned and operated large terminal and other grain elevators in that city, in Green Bay, and in other places in Wisconsin.
The village of Lanesboro contained about 1,100 inhabitants, and was situated in the county of Fillmore, Minnesota, upon the railway line of the Southern Minnesota division of the Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway Company, distant about 54 miles west from La Crosse, and having by the railway line referred to direct connection with that city.
Considerable quantities of grain had been annually raised in Fillmore county, and marketed, sold, and delivered into local grain elevators and warehouses in Lanesboro, and thence shipped in cars over the above-mentioned line of railway, which was the only means for such shipment.
The defendant company owned, occupied, and operated a grain warehouse situated on the right of way of the railway company and along its tracks in Lanesboro.
No machinery or mechanical appliances whatever had been used or were contained in its warehouse at Lanesboro; and all grain of every kind received into it during the period in question had been hauled to the warehouse in bags or farm wagons and there unloaded. The bags of grain were placed upon small hand trucks at the entrance of the building, and conveyed first to the weighing scale and thence to the grain bins of the warehouse into which the grain was poured from the bags.
The grain shipped from the warehouse was 'spouted' by force of gravity into box cars standing on the railway tracks and thence carried by the railroad company over its line for the defendant company to such points as the latter might direct.
Each parcel or lot of grain received into or deposited or handled in or shipped from the warehouse had been purchased by the defendant, and was its sole and absolute property.
The defendant company during the period mentioned never received into, or shipped from, or handled or deposited or in any was stored in the warehouse any grain in which any other person or persons had any property, title, right, or interest; nor issued or offered to issue any warehouse receipt or storage ticket for grain received there; nor carried on or offered or attempted to carry on in the warehouse the business of receiving, handling, storing, or shipping grain of or for any other person or persons. But the warehouse was used, occupied, and operated by the defendant solely for the purpose of receiving, handling, and shipping its own grain in its private capacity as grain owner and merchant.
During all the time the warehouse was owned, occupied, and operated by the defendant, all grain of every kind and description received into, or deposited or handled in, or shipped from, the warehouse was purchased by it for the express purpose of acquiring, shipping, and transporting it as its property solely to its terminal elevators in the cities of La Crosse and Green Bay, or to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, or to Chicago, Illinois, and thence to other points in states east of Lake Michigan and upon the Atlantic seaboard.
All the grain so received into, or deposited or handled in, the warehouse had been actually shipped as its property from the warehouse in carload lots over the railway line, and directly and continuously transported by the railway company beyond Minnesota to its terminal elevators, cities, or points in Wisconsin, Illinois, and states other than Minnesota, and to no other points or places.
As fast as received into the warehouse from wagons all the grain was 'spouted' into the box cars of the railway company for shipment, or was loaded into such cars severally containing different kinds of grades of grain separated from each other within the car by partitions, as sufficient grain for such a carload was accumulated in the warehouse, or was loaded out and so shipped as a full carload of grain of any one kind and grade was received into the warehouse; and no grain received or deposited in, or shipped from, the warehouse was handled or shipped in any manner other or different from one of the modes indicated, or kept in the warehouse longer or for any other purpose than as stated.
No grain received into, or deposited or handled in, or shipped from, the warehouse had been bargained or sold or delivered to any person or firm or corporation doing business or resident in, or a citizen of, Minnesota, or shipped or transported to, or delivered at, any city, village, town, point, or place within the boundaries of that state.
During the time mentioned all grain of every kind and description received into or deposited or handled in, or shipped from, the warehouse was grown in Minnesota, and was sold and delivered to the defendant by, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ravitz v. Steurele
... ... in the act, shall engage in this state in making loans in the ... amount of value of ... Co. v. State Tax Commission, 247 Ky. 144, 56 S.W.2d 691, ... 87 A. L. R ... Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, and ... West ... 190, ... 55 L.Ed. 128; W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minn., 180 U.S ... 453, 21 S.Ct. 423, ... ...
-
Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Flora Drug Co
... ... proceedings by the Flora Drug Company against the Mississippi ... State Tax Commission. From the ... Bell's Gap Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania, 134 ... U.S. 232. In that case ... 276, 45 L.Ed. 186, 189, 21 S.Ct. 128; W. W. Cargill Co ... v. Minnesota, 180 U.S. 452, 469, 45 L.Ed. 619, ... ...
-
Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. v. McLean
... ... the Federal Compress & Warehouse Company against E. R ... McLean, Sheriff. From judgment ... upon interstate commerce ... State ... ex rel. v. Grenada Cotton Compress, 85 So ... 30; Conrad v ... Miss. State Tax Commission, 133. So. 656, 160 Miss. 850; ... Pan American ... 522; Miller v ... Illinois Central Railroad Co., 111 So. 559, 146 Miss ... 442; City Sales ... 113, ... 24 L.Ed. 77; W. W. Cargill Company v. Minnesota, 180 ... U.S. 452, 21 S.Ct ... ...
-
State v. Packer Corp.
... ... [297 P. 1015] ... any person, company, or corporation, to display on any bill ... guards to be placed on railroad bridges and approaches ... thereto; Powell v ... 857, 38 L.Ed. 757; and W. W. Cargill Co. v ... Minnesota , 180 U.S. 452, 21 S.Ct ... ...