Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. State
Decision Date | 01 June 1908 |
Citation | 111 S.W. 456,86 Ark. 412 |
Parties | CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Edward W. Winfield, Judge affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This appeal involves two cases, but only one will be stated, as there is no material difference between them. The Prosecuting Attorney of the Sixth Judicial Circuit filed complaint against the defendant, Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, a foreign corporation alleging a violation of act No. 116 of 1907, which is as follows:
The answer was in six paragraphs, and was as follows:
I.
"For answer defendant says: It admits that it is a corporation engaged in the railroad business and in the transportation of freight over railroad lines in the State of Arkansas. It admits that on the 5th day of May, 1907, it operated and ran a freight train, containing more than twenty-five cars, in Pulaski County, without having equipped the same with as many as three brakemen. It admits that said train was a freight train, No. 42, engine No. 1836, and that said train was operated in an easternly direction from Argenta, Arkansas, to Hopefield, Arkansas, and over a railroad of more than fifty miles in length, but defendant states that said train was engaged in carrying interstate commerce, and was, in fact, being operated from the city of Argenta, in the State of Arkansas, to the city of Memphis, in the State of Tennessee; that Hopefield is an intermediate station between Argenta and Memphis, and it was therefore necessary for said train to pass through Hopefield on its journey from Argenta to Memphis, as aforesaid. It denies that the operation of said train, in the manner aforesaid, without having equipped said train with as many as three brakemen, was in violation of law; and denies that by so operating said train it became indebted to the State of Arkansas in the sum of $ 500.00 or in any other sum.
II.
III.
IV.
"Defendant alleges that it operates within the State of Arkansas six hundred and fourteen miles of railroad; that said line of railroad consists of main track and several branches of less than fifty miles in length; that it operates over said lines of railroad an average of thirty-five freight trains per day many of which trains are of more than twenty-five cars in length; that some of said trains are operated upon its main line, and some of said trains are operated upon its branches of less than fifty miles in length; that the fines imposed by said act of Arkansas, No. 116, approved March 28th, 1907, are such that if defendant failed to comply with said act on each of its freight trains over twenty-five cars in length operated in the State of Arkansas, the fines to which it would be subject would amount to a large sum, towit, about $ 12,500 per day, and, if continued during the time necessary to test the validity of said act, would amount to a confiscation of its entire property within the State of Arkansas; that the fines imposed by said act are therefore so excessive and burdensome as to deprive the defendant of its right to have the validity of said act tested by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hardin
...v. Moore, 103 Ark. 48, 145 S W. 199 (1912). 4 The first attack upon Act 116 of 1907 is reported in Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 86 Ark. 412, 111 S.W. 456 (1908). The attack was predicated upon the claim that the Act attempted to regulate interstate commerce, that it was arbitr......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. State
...is not a citizen within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. 8 Wall. 168; 172 Id. 239; 177 Id. 561; 204 Id. 359; 136 Id. 114; 86 Ark. 412. Nor does the act deprive appellant of its property without "due process of law." 156 U.S. 150; 169 Id. 466. The company contested the order. 71 S.C.......
-
State v. Crowe
...602; 97 N.E. 194; 131 P. 452; 163 Mich. 419; 139 P. 743; 141 Id. 158. 3. There is no discrimination, as the act only applies to classes. 86 Ark. 412; 219 U.S. 291; 183 Id. 79; Ark. 325; 81 Id. 310; 125 U.S. 680; 69 Ark. 521; 86 Id. 428; 32 L. R. A. 857. See also 197 U.S. 11. HART, J. MCCULL......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Mcnamare
...of interstate commerce. The United States "Employers Liability Act" was not in force when the injury occurred. 207 U.S. 463; 77 Ark. 483; 86 Ark. 412; 128 96; 86 Ark. 246; 129 U.S. 34; 68 L. R. A. 168; 169 U.S. 613; 80 Ark. 404; 115 U.S. 463; 26 Cyc. 980-1230. 3. The petition for change of ......