Kansas City Terminal Railway Company v. James

• Citation: 251 S.W. 53,298 Mo. 495
• Parties: KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. TOM JAMES et al
• Decision Date: 28 April 1923
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

251 S.W. 53

298 Mo. 495

KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. TOM JAMES et al

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 28, 1923

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. Clarence A. Burney Judge.

Affirmed.

Samuel W. Sawyer for appellant.

(1) Neither Section 23 of Article XII of the Constitution, nor any principle of the common law gives the defendants the right to conduct their private business upon plaintiff's property without plaintiff's consent. R. S. 1919, secs 9850, 9911, 9975, 9985; Christie v. Railroad, 94 Mo 453; State ex rel. v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410; Express Cases, 117 U.S. 1; Railroad v. Pullman Co., 139 U.S. 79; The D. R. Martin, 11 Blatch. 233, Fed. Cas. 1030; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221, Fed. Cases, 7258; Fluker v. Railroad, 81 Ga. 461; Railroad v. Transfer Co., 125 Ga. 677; Landrigan v. State, 31 Ark. 50; Railway v. Osborne, 67 Ark. 399; Barney v. Oyster Bay Co., 67 N.Y. 301; Dingman v. Railway, 164 Mich. 328; Lewis v. Railroad, 36 Texas Civ. App. 48; Railway v. White, 156 S.W. 241; State v. Steele, 106 N.C. 766; People v. Telegraph Co., 166 Ill. 15. (2) Modern authority, almost without exception, sustains plaintiff's right. Donovan v. Railroad, 195 U.S. 279; Railroad v. Minnesota, 238 U.S. 340; Taxicab Co. v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252; Carriage Co. v. Railway, 190 F. 212; Skaggs v. Railway, 233 F. 827; Cab Co. v. Terminal Association, 6 Mo. P. S. C. 19; Railroad v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35; Railroad v. Brown, 177 Mass. 65; Railroad v. Sullivan, 177 Mass. 230; Railroad v. Scovill, 71 Conn. 136; Godbout v. Depot Co., 79 Minn. 188; Railroad v. Flynn, 26 N.Y.S. 859; Brown v. Railroad, 27 N.Y.S. 69; Railroad v. Sheeley, 27 N.Y.S. 185; Railroad v. Warren, 64 N.Y.S. 781; Railroad v. Bork, 23 R. I. 218; Railway v. Baggage Co., 99 Va. 111; Hedding v. Gallagher, 72 N.H. 377; State ex rel. v. Depot Co., 71 Ohio St. 379; Railroad v. Davidson, 33 Utah 370; Kates v. Baggage Co., 107 Ga. 636; Cab Co. v. Hayden, 73 Wash. 24; Rose v. Commission 75, W.Va. 1; Railroad v. Graham, 64 Pa.Super. Ct. 437; Transfer Co. v. Portland, 84 Or. 343; Thompson v. Whitemore, 102 A. (N. J.) 692; Thompson v. Mount, 111 A. (N. J.) 173; Mader v. Topeka, 106 Kan. 867; Railroad v. Kohler, 107 Kan. 673; Denton v. Railway, 160 S.W. 113; Clisbee v. Railway, 230 S.W. 235. (3) The question is not one of public policy, but of private right. So far as public policy is incidentally involved, it is best served by complete protection of plaintiff's legal rights. Donovan v. Rairoad, 199 U.S. 279; Carriage Co. v. Railroad, 190 F. 212; Skaggs v. Railroad, 233 F. 827; Rose v. Commission, 75 W.Va. 1; Hedding v. Gallagher, 72 N.H. 377; Thompson v. Whitemore, 102 A. (N. J.) 692; Thompson v. Mount, 111 A. (N. J.) 173; Clisbee v. Railroad, 230 S.W. 235. (4) Cravens v. Rodgers, 101 Mo. 247, distinguished. Ferry Co. v. Railroad, 73 Mo. 389; Ferry Co. v. Railroad, 128 Mo. 224; Tel. Co. v. Tel. Co., 236 Mo. 114; State v. Commission, 272 Mo. 627; Taxicab Co. v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252; Skaggs v. Railroad, 233 F. 827. (5) The plaintiff has not lost the title to nor the control of its property. 18 C. J. p. 105, sec. 120; Brinck v. Collier, 56 Mo. 160; Coberly v. Butler, 63 Mo.App. 556; Irvin v. Dixon, 9 How. (U.S.) 10; Crawshaw v. Corbett, 264 F. 962; Williams v. Railroad, 39 Conn. 509; Chicago v. Railroad, 152 Ill. 561; Railroad v. Atlanta, 118 Ga. 486; Railroad v. Ossining, 126 N.Y.S. 517; Railroad v. Plotz, 125 Ind. 26. (6) Injunction is the appropriate remedy. 4 Pomeroy, Equity (3 Ed.) sec. 1357; Bryant v. West, 219 S.W. 355; Donovan v. Railroad, 199 U.S. 279; Railroad v. Sullivan, 177 Mass. 230; Railway v. Roseville, 76 Oh. St. 108; Railway v. Seattle, 33 Wash. 513; Bacon v. Railroad, 83 Vt. 421.

Clif. Langsdale for respondents.

(1) The plaintiff and the Shaw Transfer Company, seek by this suit to perfect a monopoly of the taxicab business from the Union Station. (2) Under the Constitution and the law, both statutory and case, of this State, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for herein, and the Shaw Transfer Company cannot legally be given the exclusive privilege of carrying passengers for hire from Union Station. Cravens v. Rodgers, 101 Mo. 247; Kalamazoo Hack & Bus Co. v. Sootsma, 84 Mich. 198; Cole v. Rowen, 88 Mich. 219; State v. Reed, 76 Miss. 211; Pennsylvania Company v. Chicago, 181 Ill. 289; Montana Union Ry. Co. v. Langlois, 9 Mont. 419; McConnell v. Pedigo, 92 Ky. 465; Lucas v. Herbert, 148 Ind. 64; Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. Dohn, 153 Ind. 10. (3) The traveling public is entitled to the benefits of competition of livery and taxi-cab cars in transporting them from the Union Station to their various destinations. Cravens v. Rodgers, 101 Mo. 247; State v. Reed, 76 Miss. 211; Montana Union Ry. Co. v. Langlois, 9 Mont. 419; McConnell v. Pedigo, 92 Ky. 465; Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. Dohn, 153 Ind. 10. (4) The inconveniences which might result to the traveling public from this kind of competition can all be corrected by proper and lawful regulations promulgated and enforced by the plaintiff. Cole v. Rowen, 88 Mich. 219; Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v. Dohn, 153 Ind. 10.

WOODSON, C. J. Walker, J., concurs; White, J., concurs in a separate opinion, in which James T. Blair and Ragland, JJ., concur; David E. Blair, J., dissents in a separate opinion, in which Graves, J., concurs.

OPINION

In Banc

WOODSON C. J. --

The plaintiff brought this suit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County against the defendants to enjoin the latter from entering the Plaza in front of the Union Depot, a corporation, at Kansas City, Missouri, for the purpose of securing and discharging passengers arriving at or departing from said depot, on various railroad trains entering said depot, or departing therefrom, from and destined to all points of the United States, Canada and Mexico. The trial was before the circuit court, which resulted in a finding and a decree for the defendant, and the plaintiffs, after moving unsuccessfully for a rehearing, duly appealed the cause to this court.

The sufficiency of the pleadings are not challenged, so we will put them aside.

This case was first argued and submitted to Division One of this court, and after argument and submission it was assigned to our learned Commissioner Small to write. He reported that in his opinion the judgment of the lower court should be reversed with directions that the defendants should be perpetually enjoined as prayed.

There was no vote taken on the opinion in Division One, but it ordered the cause to be transferred to Court en Banc, where it was reargued and submitted, and assigned to the undersigned to write the opinion.

The facts of the case are not complicated, and are correctly stated by Judge Small in his Divisional opinion, which I hereby adopt as the facts of the case in Court En Banc. They are as follows:

The defendants, some thirty persons in number, are the owners of automobiles and are engaged in transporting passengers for hire to and from the plaintiff's depot in said city. The petition was filed on the 10th day of June, 1920. It shows that twelve different trunk lines of railroad enter and use plaintiff's depot in handling their in-going and out-going passengers and their baggage. That plaintiff owns the land upon which the Union Station and its tracks are located and also the land south of said Union Station and bordering thereon, extending from Main Street on the east to Pershing Road on the south and Broadway on the west, known as Union Station Plaza, which furnishes access to and egress from said Union Station; that plaintiff at its own cost and expense has provided such sidewalks and roadways on said Plaza as are necessary for the use of the traveling public having business with the plaintiff or the lines of railroad using said Union Station. That the land covered by said Plaza cost said plaintiff approximately $ 650,000, and is fairly worth one million dollars, and plaintiff has expended upon paving, sidewalks and other improvements on said Plaza $ 90,000, which are now reasonably worth that sum. That there are and at all times have been exclusive of the vehicles owned and operated by defendants sufficient vehicles for the transportation of passengers and baggage to and from said Union Station, which are permitted to stand upon the Plaza by the plaintiff, the owners of which observe the regulations imposed by the plaintiff and recognize the right of plaintiff to manage and control said Union Station and Plaza. That defendants and each of them assert the right to stand their automobiles upon the said Plaza and the roadways thereon and appurtenant thereto and to solicit business and otherwise to do business on the said Plaza and the roadways and sidewalks thereon and appurtenant thereto without securing plaintiff's permission, and in defiance of plaintiff's ownership of said Plaza and the regulations for the protection of the public and for the preservation of order thereon. That defendants, and each of them in pursuance of their alleged claims, have heretofore continued to and have repeatedly stood their vehicles on the Plaza and roadways thereon; have solicited business thereon in a loud and boisterous manner; have interfered with and annoyed patrons of said lines of railroad using said union passenger station and have committed repeated trespasses upon said Plaza and Union Station. Defendants have also taken possession of a part of said Plaza and roadways thereon in defiance of plaintiff's ownership thereof and of plaintiff's rights and have refused to surrender the possession and control thereof to the plaintiff and will continue to do so, violating the plaintiff's rights, unless restrained by an order of court, and plaintiff will thereby suffer irreparable damage. That...