Louisville & N.R. Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 13 July 1914
• Docket Number: 17335
• Citation: 65 So. 881,107 Miss. 597
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. STATE
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

65 So. 881

107 Miss. 597

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. STATE

No. 17335

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 13, 1914

APPEAL from the chancery court of Harrison county. HON. J. M STEVENS, Chancellor.

Suit by the state against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment reversed and bill dismissed.

Green &amp Green and Gregory L. Smith, for appellant.

W. D Anderson, Ross A. Collins and Geo. H. Ethridge, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, C. J.

This is the third appearance of this cause in this court, the opinions rendered on the former appeals being reported in 97 Miss. 35, 51 So. 918, 53 So. 454, Ann. Cas. 1912C 1150, where a full statement of the facts and of the issues involved will be found set out, and in 61 So. 425. The decree rendered in the court below was in accordance with the opinions heretofore rendered.

Appellant's principal contention on this appeal is that the right of a foreign interstate railway carrier doing business in the state of Mississippi to remove to a federal court a suit brought against it in a Mississippi court is unconstitutionally abridged by the provisions of the statute under which the state is seeking to exclude it from further engaging in local business.

Appellee contends, appellant practically admits, and we will assume, that this contention was included in the contentions heretofore presented to this court and was decided adversely to appellant. Ordinarily, the opinions heretofore rendered would constitute the law of the case, and the matters therein decided would not be again examined by us; but the law of the case rule has no application here for the reason that the right claimed by appellant is one which arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and with reference to all such questions this court is not one of final jurisdiction, but is simply an intermediate appellate court, from whose decision an appeal lies to the supreme court of the United States, the decisions of which court, in all such matters, are binding upon and must be followed by us. Black's Law of Judicial Precedents, p. 269.

When the case was last before us, we upheld the validity of the statute on the ground that under the cases of Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. 519, 13 Pet. 519, 10 L.Ed. 274; Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 8 Wall. 168, 19 L.Ed. 357; Doyle v. Continental Insurance Co., 94 U.S. 535, 24 L.Ed. 148; Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 28, 20 S.Ct. 518, 44 L.Ed. 657; Security Mutual Insurance Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U.S. 246, 26 S.Ct. 619, 50 L.Ed. 1013, 6 Ann. Cas. 317 --a state has the power to exclude a foreign corporation from doing business within its borders for any reason it may deem proper whether that reason be good or bad, even though an unlawful motive might have impelled the state to exercise this lawful power.

Since then, however, the supreme court of the United States, in Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co., 232 U.S. 318, 34 S.Ct. 333, 58 L.Ed. 621, has held that while this may be true in so far as a corporation which is so organized that it has no authority to do anything but a...