Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company v. William Conley
Decision Date | 16 June 1913 |
Docket Number | No. 111,111 |
Citation | 33 S.Ct. 985,230 U.S. 513,57 L.Ed. 1597 |
Parties | CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM G. CONLEY, Attorney General of the State of West Virginia, et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. F. B. Enslow, H. Fitzpatrick, H. T. Wickham, and W. E. Chilton for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 514-519 intentionally omitted] Mr. William G. Conley, Attorney General of West Virginia, for defendant in error.
The suit was brought by the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company in the circuit court for Kanawha county, West Virginia, against William G. Conley, attorney general of the state of West Virginia, and the prosecuting attorneys of several counties in the state, to enjoin the enforcement of the act of the legislature of West Virginia, passed February 21, 1907 (Acts 1907, chap. 41), fixing the maximum fare for passengers on railroads, as described, at 2 cents a mile.
The state court sustained the act and this writ of error is brought.
The act provides:
The questions presented are thus stated by the plaintiff in error:
'First: The statute in question is unconstitutional because of the fact that the penalties pronounced by the statute against any railway which shall fail to comply with the same are so excessive as to bring the act within the inhibition of article 8 of the Constitution of the United States and under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States deprives the plaintiff of its property without due process of law, and denies to it the equal protection of the law.
'Second: The entire act is unconstitutional, because the classification thereby made of the railways makes the act applicable to certain railroads of a certain class, and such classification as set out is unfair and unjust, and a mere arbitrary selection imposed by the legislature without any relation to the alleged purpose of the act, and not based on any reasonable grounds.
'Third: Because the act necessarily imposes a burden upon the plaintiff as an interstate carrier, and denies it the right to transact and carry on interstate commerce free from the burdens and restrictions imposed by the West Virginia 2-cent rate act.'
While the plaintiff in error was entitled to a fair opportunity to test the constitutional validity of the prescribed rate, and penal provisions operating to preclude such an opportunity would be invalid (Ex parte Youg, 209 U. S. 123, 52 L. ed. 714, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 932, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441, 14 Ann Cas. 764), it is clear that the provisions for penalties of the statute in euqestion, aside from their separable character, are not open to this objection, in the light of the construction placed upon them by the state court. In construing the act, the supreme court of appeals of West Virginia held:
'By the institution of a suit to determine whether such a statute is confiscatory in its operation in a particular case, such corporation alters its status from that of a mere corporation engaged in the public service, to that of a contestant of the legislative claim of right to take its property without due process of law; and, in the absence of expression of intent to the contrary, it is presumed the legislature did not intend to affect, or interfere with, the assumption or maintenance of such status, nor to legislate upon the subject of such remedy; and the penal clause of such a statute, silent on the subject of remedy, has no application while a suit is pending in good faith, for the determination of such question. . . . By the application of these rules and principles, a railroad company is excepted from the operation of the penalty clause of chapter 41 of the Acts of 1907, during the prosecution by it, in good faith, of a suit to determine whether said statute is confiscatory in its operation Coal & Coke R. Co. v. Conley, 67 W. Va. Coal p Coke R. Co. v. Conley, 67 Conley, 67 W. Va. 129, 133, 134, 67 S. E. 613.
Under this ruling, it does not appear that the company is in a position to attack the validity of the act by reason of its penal provisions. It has had its opportunity in cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Board of Mississippi Levee Com'rs
... ... the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company against ... the Board of Mississippi Levee ... Telephone & Telegraph Co., $ 1, 410.45; Railway Express Co., ... $ 523.36; Western Union, $ ... 96, 51 S.Ct. 392, 75 ... L.Ed. 861; Chesapeake & O. Railroad Co. v. Conley, ... 230 U.S. 513, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Rice v. Evans-Terry Co
... ... accounts, against the Evans-Terry Company. From a decree for ... defendant, complainants ... 96, 75 L.Ed. 861; Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. Co. v ... Conley, 230 U.S. 513, 57 ... v. Maryland, 4 L.Ed. 579; Railway Co. v. Brennan, ... Sheriff, 69 Miss. 103, 107; ... ...
-
Francis Wilson v. Alexander New
...Commission, 230 U. S. 324, 57 L. ed. 1501, 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) 385, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 890; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Conley, 230 U. S. 513, 522-524, 57 L. ed. 1597, 1603, 1604, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 985; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518, 60 L. ed. 776, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 443. 10 ......
-
Louisville Gas Electric Co v. Coleman
...or less in length. Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 690, 691, 8 S. Ct. 1028, 31 L. Ed. 841. Compare Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Conley, 230 U. S. 513, 522, 33 S. Ct. 958, 57 L. Ed. 1597. A statute which permitted railroads less than 50 miles in length to heat passenger cars by stove or fur......