Cravens v. Rodgers

• Decision Date: 30 June 1890
• Citation: 14 S.W. 106,101 Mo. 247
• Parties: CRAVENS et al. v. RODGERS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

14 S.W. 106

101 Mo. 247

CRAVENS et al. v. RODGERS et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 30, 1890.

CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS — DISCRIMINATION — PUBLIC POLICY.

The owner of a bus line, who has made an approach to a depot platform under an oral agreement with the railway company that he should have its exclusive use, cannot confine the teams of a rival line to other parts of the platform, at which the chance of getting passengers is not so good, and to which in dry weather vehicles can be driven or backed up with some difficulty, while in wet weather it is very hard to do so; the agreement to give the exclusive privilege being against public policy, and the spirit of Const. Mo. art. 12, § 23, which prohibits "discrimination in charges or facilities in transportation * * * between transportation companies and individuals, or in favor of either."

Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county; CHARLES H. S. GOODMAN, Judge.

Hicklin & Yates, for appellants. Rush, Alexander & Stephens, for respondents.

BRACE, J.

This is an action to enjoin defendants from using a platform at a railroad depot. Plaintiffs allege in their petition that, as owners, they are engaged in operating a bus, hack, and carriage line between the city of Gallatin and the depot of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad, distant about a half mile from said city, and that defendants also own and operate a similar line between said city and said depot. "That one Scott T. Haynes, on or about the ____ day of November, 1883, while he was engaged in operating the said line now owned and operated by said plaintiffs, made and constructed, by and with the consent of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, (which said railroad company, plaintiffs aver, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Missouri, which on said day last aforesaid operated and controlled, and now operates and controls, the railroad on which said depot is situate,) a platform of wood and stone, at great expense to him, (the said Scott T. Haynes,) beginning about ten feet west of the west end of said depot, extending west about thirty feet along and adjoining to the platform constructed and maintained by the said railroad company for the accommodation of passengers, and south about twenty-three feet from the said platform so constructed by the said railroad company. That the said platform constructed by the said Haynes aforesaid was made upon the ground of the said railroad company, with their full knowledge and express consent, for the especial use of him, (the said Haynes,) and none other, in order that his teams and vehicles might have a place on which to back up to or approach the said platform at the said depot for the reception of passengers and baggage, free of mud and a heavy grade. That the said Haynes continued to use and enjoy the platform by him constructed as aforesaid from and after the date of its construction, in pursuance of the license, permission, and consent of the said Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, till on or about the 3d day of March, 1885, when he (the said Haynes) sold and transferred his bus, hack, and carriage line, with all its privileges and immunities, embracing the privilege and license to use and occupy and enjoy said platform, constructed by him as aforesaid, to plaintiffs herein. That the defendants, without the consent, and against the will and wish, of plaintiffs, have driven upon, and used and occupied, said platform constructed by said Haynes as aforesaid, and thereby have prevented plaintiffs from reaching the main platform at said depot, except at a place where the grade is heavy, and the mud often deep. That by so doing the defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, plaintiffs of the free use of their property, purchased from the said Haynes as aforesaid, and have thereby greatly damaged plaintiffs in the lawful exercise of their business. The defendants threaten to...