McConnell v. Pedigo

• Decision Date: 14 January 1892
• Citation: 92 Ky. 465,18 S.W. 15
• Parties: McConnell v. Pedigo et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

18 S.W. 15

92 Ky. 465

McConnell v. Pedigo et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 14, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Barren county.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by J. D. McConnell against one Pedigo and another for an injunction. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Pryor J.

This cause comes from the superior court. The Louisville &amp Nashville Railroad Company by contract agreed to give to McConnell the exclusive privilege of standing hacks at the platform of its depot in Glasgow, in consideration that McConnell would carry the mails from the depot to the post-office in that town; the railroad company, under its contract with the government, being compelled to deliver the mail on schedule time. The privilege is conferred to the exclusion of all other public hacks or vehicles from the hotels of the town. The contract was being executed by McConnell, when the defendants, Pedigo & Hays, undertook to transport passengers to and from the depot, and claimed the right to stand their hacks on the ground near or at the depot, when in doing so they did not interfere with the business of the railroad company. The result was an injunction enjoining the defendants from interfering with the rights of McConnell under his contract with the railroad company, and, the injunction being dissolved and the action dismissed, the case is brought to this court. There is no testimony whatever showing that the hacks of the defendants or their driver interfered in any way with the employes of the railroad company in the discharge of their business; and the sole question arises, has the company the right to grant such exclusive privilege? The hacks of the defendants do not stand at or near the depot where the mails are received by the plaintiff. Their drivers do not annoy the passengers by soliciting their custom, or taking charge of their baggage but stand with their hacks ready to receive passengers who desire to be carried to the hotels or other places in the city, and the only ground for the injunction is that it lessens the profits of the plaintiff under his agreement with the railroad company. It is difficult to define the extent of the power of railroad corporations in prescribing rules and regulations for the conduct of their business. They have the right to protect the company and its employes from such imposition and annoyance as interferes with the discharge of their duties. No employe should be obstructed in the discharge of his duty when controlling the trains or in charge of the depot and its grounds. Crowds of persons who have no business on the platform, and who go from curiosity to see the trains arrive and depart, may be required to leave, so as to give proper ingress and egress to those who have the right to be on the platform. The company may inclose its platform, and prevent any one from entering except those who have business with the company, or desire to travel on the cars. The passengers, with their baggage, may be required to enter the omnibus or hacks outside of the depot platform if deemed necessary for the successful and convenient conduct of the business; but a regulation that does not pertain to their business, or that discriminates by driving from their depots those who are engaged in a public employment, and whose duty it is to provide for their guests and the traveling public, resulting in a monopoly of the particular business, is unauthorized by its charter, and in palpable violation of the rights of others. The hotel-keeper has the right to have his hack at the depot convenient for those who may desire to patronize him; and the railroad...