Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Miller
Decision Date | 10 January 1902 |
Citation | 112 Ky. 464,66 S.W. 5 |
Parties | LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. MILLER. [1] |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
"To be officially reported."
Motion by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company against Shackelford Miller for a writ of prohibition. Granted.
Helm Bruce & Helm, for petitioner.
Dodd & Dodd, Hazelrigg & Chenault, and W. M. Smith, for defendant.
DU RELLE, J.
The Central Stock Yards Company brought suit in the Jefferson circuit court against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company seeking to have certain live stock delivered to the Central Stock Yards Company at the Central Stock Yards station. The suit was duly allotted to the chancery division. Application having been made and affidavits filed, the court delivered a written opinion, and entered an order as follows "And in pursuance of said opinion it is ordered and adjudged that the defendant Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company be enjoined and restrained from neglecting, failing or refusing to receive, and said Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company is hereby required and compelled until further order of the court herein to receive at any and all of its stations in Kentucky, and to bill, transport transfer, switch, and deliver in the customary way at its most convenient and practical point of physical connection between its tracks in Louisville, Kentucky, and the tracks of the Southern Railway Company in Kentucky at Louisville, Kentucky, and at their Seventh and Magnolia connection, any and all live stock and other freight consigned to the Southern Railway Company in Kentucky at Louisville, Kentucky, for the Central Stock Yards Company, for transportation and delivery by said Southern Railway Company in Kentucky to plaintiff at Central Stock Yards, Kentucky, or any other person or persons at said station, or in care of said Central Stock Yards Company at said station, and to so transfer, switch, and deliver to said Southern Railway Company in Kentucky at Louisville, Kentucky, and at said point of physical connection, any and all live stock and other freight coming over its lines in Kentucky consigned to the Central Stock Yards Company at Central Stock Yards, Kentucky, or any other person or persons at said station, or in care of said Central Stock Yards Company at said station, for transportation and delivery by said Southern Railway Company in Kentucky at Louisville, Kentucky, and so billed and consigned." After the entry of the order, live stock was offered to the railroad company at Columbia, Tenn., and the company requested to bill and consign the stock to the Central Stock Yards via the Southern Railway in Kentucky. The Nashville Railroad Company refused to so bill and consign the live stock, but it was received and billed and consigned to Louisville, Ky. The Louisville & Nashville Railway Company's live stock station in Louisville is the Bourbon Stock Yards. When the consignment reached South Louisville, the consignee, by authority of the consignor, demanded that the cars containing the shipment be stopped at that point, and delivered to the Southern Railway Company in Kentucky, to be carried on the track of the latter company to the Central Stock Yards station,--which is not in Louisville,--and there delivered to the Central Stock Yards Company. The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company refused to comply with this demand, but carried the shipment to the Bourbon Stock Yards, its live stock station in Louisville. A rule issued from the circuit court against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company to show cause why it should not be punished for contempt for disobeying the order of court before mentioned. The facts herein stated having been made to appear, the railroad company was adjudged...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co.
... ... company to contract with either its customers or connecting ... lines." In Penn. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 132 U.S ... 75, 10 S.Ct. 34, 33 L.Ed. 267, it was held that "neither ... the original charter of the railroad company nor subsequent ... acts ... ...
-
L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Central Stock Yards Co.
...held that the order did not cover such shipments, and therefore granted the prohibition asked for. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Miller, 66 S. W. 5, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1714. Immediately following this proceeding the stockyards company, instead of moving the circuit court to extend......
-
Terminal Ass of St Louis v. United States, 115
...(D. C.) 10 F. 622, 625, 626; Ophir Creek Water Co. v. Ophir Hill Mining Co., 61 Utah, 551, 556, 216 P. 490; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Miller, 112 Ky. 464, 472, 66 S. W. 5; Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Smith, 52 Wis. 140, 143, 8 N. W. 613; Sullivan v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., 222......
-
Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon
... ... P ... Hobson & Son, of Frankfort, and Richards & Harris, of ... Louisville, for petitioner ... O'Doherty ... & Yonts, of Louisville, for respondent ... 419, 54 S.W. 732, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1157, 50 L.R.A. 105; L ... & N. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 112 Ky. 464, 66 S.W. 5, 23 Ky ... Law Rep. 1714; Campbellsville Telephone Co. v ... Patterson, ... ...