Milton Dairy Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 02 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,364 - (26) |
| Citation | 144 N.W. 764,124 Minn. 239 |
| Parties | MILTON DAIRY COMPANY v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county against 10 railroad companies, 7 express companies, and Lyndon A. Smith, to determine that the act of 1913, regulating the shipment of cream upon the railroads of the state, was void; to enjoin defendants other than defendant Smith from observing the requirements of the act and from refusing to receive and ship cream to plaintiff and others, and restraining defendant Smith, as attorney general or otherwise, pending the determination of the action, from commencing any proceeding against defendants to compel them to observe the statute. From an order, Catlin, J., granting plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction, defendant Lyndon A. Smith appealed. Reversed.
Injunction -- shipment of cream -- enjoining prosecution of criminal action.
Action by a creamery company engaged in manufacturing butter from cream, to enjoin certain carriers from complying with, and the attorney general from enforcing, Laws 1913, c. 433 regulating shipment of cream on railroads within the state on the ground that such act is unconstitutional and compliance therewith would interfere with the supply of cream necessary to its business and that of other manufacturers similarly situated, thus causing great losses and eventual destruction of their business, held essentially one to enjoin the prosecution of criminal actions, and hence not maintainable as to any of defendants, notwithstanding the multiplicity of such actions against the carriers incident to enforcement of the statute; plaintiff's injury being merely consequential and incidental, without trespass against its property rights, and therefore insufficient to give it any proper status as plaintiff in the premises.
Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, and John C. Nethaway, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Durment, Moore & Oppenheimer, for respondent.
Appeal by defendant Smith from an order directing issuance of a temporary injunction enjoining defendant railway and express companies, pending determination of the action, from complying with Laws 1913, p. 632, c. 433 (G.S. 1913, §§ 4385, 4386), regulating shipment of cream on railroads within the state, and also restraining defendant Smith, as attorney general or otherwise, from bringing actions or proceedings to compel any of his codefendants to comply therewith and from enforcing its penal provisions. The order was granted on the complaint and affidavits in support thereof, after answer interposed by defendant Smith, the record disclosing none other.
The complaint alleged plaintiff's ownership of an established business in St. Paul for manufacturing butter from cream, of great value, its good will alone being worth $25,000, with a fixed trade and many customers in this and adjoining states, from whom large quantities of cream were bought and shipped to plaintiff's factory, the greater part of which came by rail from places more than 65 miles distant. It then substantially continues: Many other large manufacturers of butter in the state are similarly circumstanced, and before the act went into effect defendant carriers transported the cream mentioned to plaintiff and to them, on passenger trains, in express and baggage cars, under published tariff rates for intrastate transportation, but since have refused to receive the cream for carriage in Minnesota, except for distances not exceeding 65 miles, unless accompanied by a certificate of pasteurization, which regulation cannot be complied with. Further, defendant express companies have no refrigerator service, nor defendant railway companies on passenger trains, and the same could not be instituted within less than a year, and would require prohibitive freight charges. Moreover, both methods of shipment provided in the act are unnecessary, either for protection of health or otherwise; and plaintiff cannot procure cream requisite for its business with necessary expedition, except by shipments over defendants' lines as heretofore, and their refusal to transport has greatly damaged such business, causing heavy loss, and persistence therein or enforcement of the act will result in destruction not only of plaintiff's business but also that of other manufacturers similarly situated. The act is alleged to be discriminative and otherwise void as in conflict with both state and Federal Constitutions, notwithstanding which defendant carriers will continue to comply therewith, fearing imposition of the penalties prescribed for violations. Defendant Smith is connected with the above allegations as being attorney general of the state, and, it is charged, will, unless forbidden, institute actions against his codefendants to compel them to comply with the terms of the act in case of their refusal, and cause impositions of the penalties prescribed, thus entailing multiplicity of suits and fines, the fear of which has induced obedience. Plaintiff purports to sue on its own behalf and likewise for all others similarly situated who shall see fit to make themselves parties.
The statute assailed prohibits shipment of cream for a distance of more than 65 miles over any railroad in the state, except in refrigerator cars kept effectively iced and in sanitary condition, unless the cream shall have previously been pasteurized. Railroad companies are forbidden to ship or receive for shipment cream except as provided, and violations constitute misdemeanors.
Court of equity's power to determine the validity of penal statutes and to restrain criminal prosecutions thereunder when unconstitutional, where such would directly result in irreparable injury to property rights, is undoubted, the question being the propriety of its exercise in a given case, and the rule, furthermore, being subject to the qualification that it does not authorize actions the gravamen of which is to enjoin criminal proceedings. See note, 25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 193; Minneapolis Brewing Co. v. McGillivray (C.C.) 104 F. 258, 272.
This court, in accord with many others, both state and Federal for reasons to be adverted to later, has sanctioned such relief reluctantly and cautiously. In Cobb v. French, 111 Minn. 429, 127 N.W. 415, a cream buyer...
To continue reading
Request your trial