Express Companies Cases St Louis Ry Co v. Southern Express Co

Decision Date29 January 1883
Parties'EXPRESS COMPANIES' CASES.' ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The Southern Express Company, an express carrier, filed its bill in equity against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, in the circuit court for the eastern district of Missouri, to enjoin the railway company from interfering with or disturbing the express company in the enjoyment of the facilities it then had for the transaction of its express business over the railway company's railroad, so long as the express company conformed to the regulations of the railway company and paid all lawful charges for the business. A preliminary injunction was asked for, and, in this connection, the bill prayed that if any dispute or disagreement should arise between the parties during the pendency of the suit, upon the question of compensation to be paid for transportation, the express company might be permitted to bring the same before the court for decision by way of an interlocutory application. On the filing of the bill the preliminary injunction was granted, which was afterwards modified in some particulars affecting the compensation to be paid and the mode of doing the business.

On the twenty-fifth of March, 1882, the court entered a decree containing the following provisions:

'(5) That it is the duty of the defendant to carry the express matter of the plaintiff's company, and the messengers or agents in charge thereof, at a just and reasonable rate of compensation, and that such rate of compensation is to be found and established as a unit, and is to include as well the transportation of such messengers or agents as of the express matter in their custody and under their control.'

'(10) Whereas, it is alleged by complainant that since the commencement of this suit, and the service of the preliminary order of injunction herein, the defendant has, in violation of said injunction and of the rights of complainant, made unjust discriminations against complainant, and has charged complainant unjust and unreasonable rates for carrying express matter, therefore it is ordered that complainant have leave hereafter to apply for an investigation of these and similar allegations, and for such order with respect thereto as the facts, when ascertained, may justify, and for the appointment of a master to take proof and report thereon.'

'(11) That the defendant, its officers, agents, servants, and employes, and all persons acting under their authority, be, and they hereby are, permanently and perpetually enjoined and restrained from interfering with or disturbing in any manner the enjoyment by the plaintiff of the facilities provided for in this decree, to be accorded to it by the said defendant upon its lines of railway, or such as have been heretofore accorded to it for the transaction of the business of the plaintiff and of the express business of the public confided to its care, and from interfering with any of the express matter or messengers of the plaintiff, and from excluding or ejecting any of its express matter or messengers from the depot, trains, cars, or lines of the said defendant, as the same are by this decree directed to be permitted to be enjoyed and occupied by the said plaintif...

To continue reading

Request your trial
132 cases
  • Richerson v. Jones
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • March 7, 1977
    ......Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Ry. Co. v. Southern ... cannot be recovered in the absence of an express provision to the contrary in the relevant statute ...) empowered the district court in Title VII cases to "order such affirmative action as may be ......
  • Republic Natural Gas Co v. State of Oklahoma
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1948
    ......In such cases the accounting is deemed a severed controversy ...548, 65 S.Ct. 770, 89 L.Ed. 1171; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. Co. v. Southern ......
  • U.S. v. Dior
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1982
    ...... this circuit that new trial orders in civil cases are not appealable until after retrial because ...1377 (1956), quoting St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. Co. v. Southern ......
  • ADAR v. SMITH
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 12, 2011
    ......         The cases thus couple the individual right with the duty ...This, even though, by its express terms, Louisiana adoption law governs only who ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT