John Knott v. Chicago, Burlington Quincy Company v. John Knott John Knott v. St Louis San Francisco Railroad Company St Louis San Francisco Railroad Company v. John Knott John Knott v. Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. John Knott John Knott v. Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company v. John Knott John Knott v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. John Knott John Knott v. St Louis Hannibal Railway Company St Louis Hannibal Railway Company v. John Knott John Knott v. Missouri, Kansas Texas Railway Company Missouri, Kansas Texas Railway Company v. John Knott John Knott v. Kansas City, Clinton Railway Company Kansas City, Clinton Springfield Railway Company v. John Knott John Knott v. Chicago Great Western Railway
| Decision Date | 10 April 1911 |
| Docket Number | 340,345,12,Nos. 9,342,339,341,SPRING-FIELD,s. 9 |
| Citation | 57 L.Ed. 1571,33 S.Ct. 975,230 U.S. 474 |
| Parties | JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al., Appts., v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON, & QUINCY R. R. COMPANY. v. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al. Appts., v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY, Appt., v. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al., Appts., v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt., v. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al., Appts., v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt., v. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al., Appts., v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt., v. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al., Appts., v. ST. LOUIS & HANNIBAL RAILWAY COMPANY. ST. LOUIS & HANNIBAL RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt., v. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al., Appts., v. MISSOURI, KANSAS, & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY. MISSOURI, KANSAS, & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt., v. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad & Warehouse Commissioner, et al. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al. Appts., v. KANSAS CITY, CLINTON, &RAILWAY COMPANY. KANSAS CITY, CLINTON, & SPRINGFIELD RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt., v. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al. JOHN A. KNOTT et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, et al., Appts., v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY C |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 475-476 intentionally omitted] Appeals and cross appeals from decrees of the circuit court entered March 8, 1909, as amended April 17, 1909, adjudging the maximum freight rate acts passed by the legislature of the state of Missouri in 1905 and 1907, and the maxi- mum passenger fare act passed in 1907, to be confiscatory, and enjoining their enforcement. 168 Fed. 317.
Eighteen suits, brought by as many railroad companies, were begun in June, 1905, assailing the act of April 15, 1905 (effective June 16, 1905), which prescribed maximum rates for intrastate transportation of certain commodities in carload lots. The members of the board of railroad commissioners, the attorney general of the state, and representative shippers, were made defendants.
Preliminary injunction was granted in each case, demurrers to the bills were overruled, answers were filed, and in March, 1906, the cases were referred to a master to take evidence and report. The master proceeded, by agreement, to take testimony in three of the cases.
While this reference was pending, the legislature, in 1907, passed the following acts:
(1) That of February 27, 1907, fixing a maximum passenger fare within the state of 2 cents a mile for railroads over 45 miles in length.
(2) That of March 19, 1907, repealing the act of April 15, 1905, and prescribing new maximum intrastate rates for specified commodities in carload lots, the rates being higher in certain instances than those of the former act. It also repealed an act passed April 14, 1905 (not mentioned in the original bills), relating to rates on stone, sand, and brick, and made new rates therefor. It was provided that the repeal should not relieve any railroad company from liabilities and penalties previously incurred.
(3) That of March 19, 1907, fixing maximum rates for fruit in carload lots.
(4) That of April 4, 1907, requiring carriers of live stock in carload lots to carry the shipper or his agent free of charge.
These acts took effect on June 14, 1907.
On June 11, 1907, the complainant in each of the eighteen cases moved for leave to file an amended and supplemental bill, then presented to the court, which set forth the legislation of 1907, above-mentioned, and asked relief against its enforcement upon the grounds that these acts constituted an unwarrantable interference with interstate commerce and that they were confiscatory. On June 13, 1907, the court made an order setting down the applications for argument, and meanwhile restraining the enforcement of the new rates. On June 17, 1907, upon hearing, leave to file was granted and a temporary injunction was allowed as to the freight rate laws of 1907, but not as to the passenger fare law. The latter was permitted to go into effect for three months without prejudice, and was thereafter continued in force until the final decrees.
Meanwhile on June 14, 1907, bills were filed in the name of the state in the state court against the railway companies, seeking an injunction requiring them to put in force both the freight and passenger rates as prescribed.
The supplemental bills in the Federal courts were amended so as to show these proceedings. On demurrer to these bills, as amended, it was insisted that they were without equity; that the matters alleged were not germane to or supplementary of the original bills; and that the state court had jurisdiction of the proceedings therein instituted. The demurrers were overruled and the defendants answered.
It was ordered (June 13, 1908) that the eighteen cases should be set down for hearing before the court upon the testimony theretofore taken before the master, and upon such further oral and documentary evidence as should then be offered in open court. And the cases were so heard.
With respect to eight of the suits, it was stipulated that they should abide the result in other suits named.
The case of the St. Louis, Kansas City, & Colorado Railroad Company was consolidated with that of the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company, the latter having acquired the property of the former, and the court ordered that the 'findings, statements, and figures' of the two companies should be combined. In the suit brought by the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railway Company, then the lessee of the property, the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad Company was substituted as complainant on the cancelation of the lease.
In the nine cases thus remaining, the court held that the rate acts, both of 1905 and 1907, were invalid, as confiscatory. The contention as to the invalidity of the acts by reason of interference with interstate commerce was not sustained. The costs were equally divided.
And from the final decrees entered in these nine suits, the above entitled appeals and cross appeals were taken.
Mr. Elliott W. Major, Attorney General of missouri, and Messrs. Sanford B. Ladd, Frederick W. Lehmann, and John M. Atkinson for Knott et al.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 479-485 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frank Hagerman and O. M. Spencer for the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad Company on original argument.
Messrs. Frank Hagerman,
[Argument of Counsel from pages 485-493 intentionally omitted]
Gardiner Lathrop, W. F. Evans, Robert Dunlap, Thomas R. Morrow, M. A. Low, M. L. Bell, S. W. Moore, J. D. Hostetter, James Hagerman, Joseph M. Bryson, Chester M. Dawes, O. M. Spencer, John H. Lucas, and John Barton Payne for all the railroads on reargument.
Mr. Winfred T. Denison, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Thurlow M. Gordon, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Messrs. Jared How, Judson Harmon, Herbert S. Hadley, and Charles H. Aldrich;
[Argument of Counsel from pages 493-495 intentionally omitted]
Mr. R. C. Johnson, Attorney General of South Dakota, with Mr. P. W. Dougherty, Mr. Grant G. Martin, Attorney General of Nebraska, and Mr. William T. Thompson, Former Attorney General; Mr. George E. Cosson, Attorney General of Iowa, with Mr. J. H. Henderson; Mr. John S. Dawson, Attorney General of Kansas, with Mr. S. M. Brewster; Mr. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General of Alabama, with Mr. Harry C. Selheimer, and Mr. Charies West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, with Mr. Frederick N. Judson, as amici curice.
Statement by Mr. Justice Hughes:
Mr. Justice Hughes, after making the above statement, delivered the opinion of the court:
1. The contention of the appellants that the court erred in permitting the filing of the amended and supplemental bills is without merit. Although the commodity rate act of 1907 repealed that of 1905, it saved the penalties and liabilities incurred under the repealed statute. Both the original and supplemental bills proceeded upon the broad ground that the returns of the companies from their intrastate business, prior to the act of 1905, were unreasonably low, and that any reduction in rates would
only diminish the income, already inadequate. The additional legislation pending the suits, and the substitution of slightly higher rates on certain commodities embraced in the earlier act, did not alter the essential features of the controversy. There was identity of parties and subject-matter, although nominally different acts were involved. To have required original bills would have involved double litigation, double costs, and great delay. The ends of justice were advanced by allowing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Railroad Commission of California v. Pacific Gas Electric Co
...Cases, 1913, 230 U.S. 352, 434, 454, 33 S.Ct. 729, 57 L.Ed. 1511, 48 L.R.A., N.S., 1151, Ann.Cas.1916A, 18; Missouri Rate Cases, 1913, 230 U.S. 474, 498, 33 S.Ct. 975, 57 L.Ed. 1571; Denver v. Cenver Union Water Co., 1918, 246 U.S. 178, 190, 38 S.Ct. 278, 62 L.Ed. 649; S.W. Tel. Co. v. Pub.......
-
State v. Public Service Commission
...Assembly under the mandate of the Constitution have been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mo. Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 474, 33 Sup. Ct. 975, 57 L. Ed. 1571. The later acts of the Legislature devolving its constitutional duty on the Public Service Commission being in violati......
-
Baltimore Co v. United States
...Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, 466, 33 S.Ct. 729, 57 L.Ed. 1511, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, Ann.Cas.1916A, 18; Missouri Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 474, 507, 33 S.Ct. 975, 57 L.Ed. 1571. Cf. Pacific Gas Co. v. San Francisco, 265 U.S. 403, 406, 44 S.Ct. 537, 68 L.Ed. 1075; McCardle v. Indianapolis ......
-
Los Angeles Gas Electric Corporation v. Railroad Commission of California
... ... Court of the United States for the Southern" District of California ... \xC2" ... Herman Phleger, of San Francisco, Cal., Paul Overton, Maurice E. Harrison, and ... Erwin P. Werner, City Atty., and Frederick Von Schrader, and William H ... 58 F.(2d) 256. The company appeals ... The company, ... Electricity has not to any great extent supplanted gas as a fuel. All of the ... Cas. 1916A, 18; Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission, 262 U.S. 625, ... v. Southern Pacific Co., 268 U.S. 146, 156, 45 S.Ct. 465, 69 L.Ed ... Louis & O'Fallon Railway Co. v. United States, 279 U.S ... Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, ... See, e.g., National Waterworks Co. v. Kansas City (C.C.A.) 62 F. 853, 865, 27 L.R.A. 827; City ... 39, 42—45, 45 S.Ct. 412, 69 L.Ed. 836; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 274 U.S. 344, ... 488, 53 S.Ct. 234, 77 L.Ed. 447. In Missouri Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 474, 33 S.Ct. 729, 57 L.Ed ... ...
-
How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
...U.S. 466, 522-50 (1898) (railroad rates); The Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352,433-73 (1913) (railroad rates); The Missouri Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 474, 507-09 (1913) (railroad rates); San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. County of Stanislaus, 233 U.S. 454,458-61 (1914) (water......