McCoy v. Cincinnati, I., St. L. & C.R. Co.

Decision Date31 July 1882
Citation13 F. 3
PartiesMcCOY v. C., I., ST. L. & C.R. CO. and another. [1]
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

Ramsey & Matthews, for complainant

Hoadly Johnson & Colston, for defendant Cincinnati, Indianapolis St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company.

Paxton & Warrington and Stallo, Kittredge & Shoemaker, for defendant United Railroads Stock-Yards Company.

BAXTER C.J.

The facts in this case are few and simple. After averring that he is a citizen of Kentucky, and that the United Railroads Stock-Yards Company is an Ohio corporation, and that the defendant the Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the complainant charges that he is lessee of certain stock-yards, referred to in his bill situated on the line of the Cincinnati & Baltimore Railroad Company's road, in Hamilton county, Ohio; that his yards are connected with said railroad by a suitable switch; that he is there engaged in the business of receiving, feeding housing, and shipping live-stock; that the Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company's road connects with the Cincinnati & Baltimore Company's road two miles south of complainant's yards; and that the said defendant is, by contract, in the use of that portion of said Cincinnati & Baltimore Railroad Company's road lying between said point of junction and complainant's yards, over which it is carrying on the business of a common carrier of live-stock, making regular deliveries to, and receiving stock from, its co-defendant, loaded in cars standing on the track. He furthermore alleges such receipt and delivery of stock in cars on the track is necessary to the successful prosecution of his business, but that, in disregard of the obligations imposed on it by law, said defendant has entered into a contract with the United Railroads Stock-Yards Company, its co-defendant, whereby it has covenanted to make said United Railroads Stock-Yards Company's yards its depot for the receipt and delivery of all live-stock carried by it to and from Cincinnati, and obliged itself, in so far as it could lawfully do so, to deliver all live-stock carried by it to, or received for shipment from, Cincinnati to and from its co-defendant, and that, relying on said contract as a valid obligation and a sufficient justification of its action in the premises, said defendant unlawfully and wrongfully refuses to receive stock from, or deliver stock to, complainant, except through the United Railroads Stock-Yards Company's yard, whose yards, it appears, adjoin the complainant's yards.

Complainant thereupon prays for an injunction to restrain said defendant from so discriminating against it, and to compel it to receive and make deliveries of stock to him in the same manner and on as favorable terms as it receives from and delivers to complainant's said competitor.

The application for a preliminary injunction came on for argument before me at Knoxville on the twelfth of July, 1882, when the Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company filed its plea denying the jurisdiction of this court, because, as the plea avers, it is not a corporation of Ohio, as it alleged, but that it is a corporation under and in virtue of the laws of the state of Indiana alone. It does not, by its plea, deny services of process or raise any question in regard to its regularity or legal sufficiency. But the counsel insisted in argument that as defendant was an Indiana corporation, and a citizen of that state, it could not be lawfully served with process in this jurisdiction, and that it was, therefore, not legitimately before the court.

We need not stop to demonstrate that the question argued by counsel is broader than the plea, inasmuch as if such question was raised by the plea I would not hesitate to overrule it.

We concede that corporations-- mere legal entities-- can only legally exist within the territorial limits of the sovereignty creating them; that they must dwell in the places of their creation, and can not migrate to other sovereignties. But it is as equally well settled that they can do business, if not inhibited by law from so doing, in foreign states and countries, and that they may be there sued in relation to the same. 1 Redfield, Railw.p. 63, Sec. 4.

Hence, if it were conceded that the defendant is an Indiana corporation, as alleged in its plea, it appears that it owns and operates a railroad in Ohio, where its president resides and its principal office is located, and that it is there, by legislative permission, engaged in the business of a railroad carrier. If so, it is liable to be served with process in this jurisdiction. 'This court,' says Judge Force, of the superior court of Cincinnati, in a case recently decided by him, 'has, by statute, jurisdiction of an action against a foreign corporation when such corporation can be found within the city. A corporation can be found where it can be served with a process according to law. A foreign corporation can be served with a summons according to law (in Ohio) by service upon a managing agent. ' And about the same time Mr. Justice Matthews said, in a similar case, pending in this court, that 'where foreign corporations establish an agency in a state whose laws provide (as in this) that they may be summoned by process served upon an agent, they are 'found' within the district in which such agent is doing business, within the meaning of the act of congress of March 3, 1875, and may be served in the same manner in suits brought in the United States court. ' Mohr & Mohr Distilling Co. v. Ins. Co. 12 F. 474, and authorities cited in the note thereto. These adjudications are conclusive of the question attempted to be raised in this case. The defendant is duly before the court, and it only remains to be determined how far, if at all, the complainant is entitled to relief upon the facts herein stated.

Railroads are potential agencies, constitute a very considerable part of the national wealth, and deserve to be fully protected in all their chartered rights. But while they are essential to the continued prosperity and to the further development of the varied resources of this great country, they are susceptible, when manipulated in the interest of selfish schemes, of being perverted to the most unjust and oppressive uses. They necessarily monopolize all inland carrying business, and if unrestrained can, by unjust discriminations favor some individuals and communities to the very serious detriment of others. Hence the frequent efforts made to control them in the interests of individuals and communities. By establishing or abandoning a depot they can depreciate or enhance the value of private property, and by extending or withholding facilities increase the profits or inflict losses on all persons engaged in commercial or other pursuits dependent on their favor. An advance of two cents per bushel on the grain annually carried from the grain-producing west to the eastern cities, with a corresponding increase upon all other classes of freight, would impose a tax upon the industry of the country exceeding in amount the annual levies made by congress for the support of the national government. If permitted, they can so regulate their freight charges as to exact from each locality dependent upon them the utmost farthing which the circumstances of each particular case and the absence of wholesome competition enable them to impose. For instance, where competition is sharp, they can carry passengers and freight over their entire lines for less than they charge for short intermediate distances, simply because in the one case they are controlled by competition, and in the other, in absence of such competition, they have it in their power to extort the utmost farthing which such intermediate business is capable of bearing. Those who have them in charge can organize side...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 15 Noviembre 1906
    ...cited being strongly in point. Peoria & R.I. R. R. Co. v. C. V. M. Co., 68 Ill. 489; Munn v. Ill., 94 U.S. 126, 24 L.Ed. 77; McCoy v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 13 F. 5; Inter Ocean Co. v. Associated Press, 184 Ill. 56 N.E. 822, 48 L.R.A. 568, 75 Am.St.Rep. 184; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. People, 5......
  • Romaine v. Union Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • 9 Agosto 1886
    ... ... fact 'found' within the district;) Hale v ... Continental Life Ins. Co., 12 F. 359. McCoy v ... Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 13 F. 3, was a plea to the ... jurisdiction, but Judge BAXTER ... ...
  • State ex rel. Board of Transportation v. Sioux City
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 9 Enero 1896
    ... ... R. Co., 6 F. 437; Southern Express Co ... v. Iron M. & S. R. Co., 10 F. 210; McCoy v ... Cincinnati, I., St. L. & C. R. Co., 13 F. 3; State v ... Republican V. R. Co., 17 Neb ... ...
  • Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky v. Hatchett
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 9 Marzo 1917
    ... ... The railway company appeals ...          Burgin ... is situated on the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific ... Railroad (formerly the Cincinnati Southern Railroad) 5.36 ... Colony R. R. Co., 164 Mass. 29, 41 N.E. 107, 29 L.R.A ... 169, 49 Am.St.Rep. 442; McCoy v. C., I. & St. L. & C. R ... Co. (C. C.) 13 F. 3, and the authorities cited in the ... note in ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • BARGAINING FOR FREE SPEECH: COMMON CARRIAGE, NETWORK NEUTRALITY, AND SECTION 230.
    • United States
    • Yale Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 22 No. 1, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...that the carrier holds itself out as providing the services to the public."). (64) See, e.g, McCoy v. Cincinnati Railway., & C.R.R. Co., 13 F. 3, 7, 9-10 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1882) (holding that a railroad could not form an exclusive delivery relationship with one stockyard at the expense of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT