Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Citation203 U.S. 335,51 L.Ed. 209,27 S.Ct. 90
Decision Date03 December 1906
Docket NumberNo. 64,64
PartiesMISSISSIPPI RAILROAD COMMISSION, R. L. Bradley, S. D. McNair, and J. C. Kincannon, Members of Said Commission, and T. R. Maxwell, Clerk Thereof, Appts., v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

The railroad commission of the state of Mississippi, and its members and clerk, as appellants, bring to this court by appeal the judgment of the circuit court of appeals for the fifth circuit, which court reversed the judgment of the United States circuit court for the southern district of Mississippi, in favor of the appellants, and remanded the case, with directions to enter a decree for the complainant, the railroad company.

The case, as it appears in the record, shows the following facts:

The citizens of the town of Magnolia, which has about 1,200 inhabitants, and is situated in the state of Mississippi, on the line of the railroad of the appellee, and about 98 miles north of New Orleans, in April, 1903, presented a petition to the Mississippi railroad commission, asking that commission to order the railroad company to stop its passenger trains numbers 1, 3, and 4 at the Magnolia station, the ground of the request being, as stated in the petition, that Magnolia was one of the most progressive towns in the state and the county site of the county, and the petitioners believed that they were entitled to have these trains make regular stops at that point, and they stated their belief that it was for the best interest of the public, as well as the town, to have the passenger trains named make regular stops at the town.

Trains numbers 1 and 3 were south-bound trains from Chicago, passing Magnolia on their way to New Orleans, while train number 4 was a train on its way north to Chicago from New Orleans.

After a hearing before the railroad commission, on notice to the railroad company, the commission made an order granting the application as to trains 1 and 3, and denying it as to number 4.

Before obeying the order the company brought this suit to enjoin its enforcement. Upon the filing of the bill a temporary injunction was issued and a subsequent motion to dissolve it was denied. The defendant in the suit, the railroad commission, answered the bill, and denied that the railroad company furnished the town of Magnolia with adequate accommodations for the south, and put in issue the allegations of the bill that the order made by the commission was unreasonable or an illegal interference with the interstate commerce of the railroad company. The case came on for hearing before the circuit court, at the end of which a decree was made denying the relief asked for by the complainant, the court holding that the order of the commission was not unreasonable, and that therefore the temporary injunction should be, and it was, dissolved. An appeal to the circuit court of appeals was prayed for by the railroad company and granted.

The bill stated, amongst other things, that the corporation was created under the laws of the state of Illinois, and that the complainant was a resident of that state, and domiciled in the city of Chicago; and that the railroad commission was created by the state of Mississippi, and its individual members were citizens and residents of that state. The complainant further showed that it was operating an interstate line of railroad, extending from the city of New Orleans, in Louisiana north through that state and the states of Mississippi, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois to the Great Lakes of the Northwest, connecting at various points with other lines of interstate railroads. It is also averred that the Congress of the United States had established the line of railroad operated by the complainant as a national highway, for the accommodation of interstate commerce and the carriage of the mails of the United States, and had been so recognized and promoted as such by various acts of Congress; that owing to the exigencies of its interstate business and the requirements of modern commerce and passenger transportation, as well as the transportation of freight and the United States mails, the complainant had been, from time to time, required to shorten its schedule, and to maintain and operate certain fast through trains, intended primarily and chiefly for interstate transportation and interstate commerce; that the two trains numbered 1 and 3—one being known as the fast mail and the other as the New Orleans & Chicago Limited—were run expressly for the purpose of carrying the interstate business and for the transportation of the United States mail, and that they were run on special schedules for that purpose, and of necessity had to make close connections with other through trunk lines of railroad doing an interstate business, and, in order to maintain the necessary schedule of time for the operation of these interstate trains, it was impossible and wholly impracticable to stop at all stations; and, further, that these trains, being south-bound trains, only stop regularly at junction points and all such points of importance in the state of Mississippi which are necessary and which justify such stops. The bill showed the accommodations which were afforded the town of Magnolia by the other trains provided by the company, and which it alleged sufficiently accommodated the traveling public at that point; that a compliance with the order of the commission, by stopping the trains named, would imperil the ability of the complainant to comply with its contract with the United States for the carriage of the mails, and would embarrass its interstate traffic, and that it would be impossible, under the present condition of the roadbed and equipment of the complainant, to increase the speed of the trains so as to allow for the stoppage of the trains as directed by the commission; that the complainant protested before the commission against the issuing of the order, and it alleged that it showed that it was then furnishing the town of Magnolia all reasonable and necessary railroad facilities, and that the effect of the order would be to give that town greater railroad facilities than were afforded by complainant to any other town in the state of Mississippi, including the city of Jackson, the capital of the state, excepting only the town of McComb City, which, being a relay station on complainant's road, it is necessary for all trains to stop there to change the engine, and for fuel, water, etc.; that the effect of the order also would be to give to the town five daily trains to the city of New Orleans, running within short intervals of each other. It was further alleged that by the statutory law of the state of Mississippi the complainant was subject to a penalty of $50 for each time it failed to stop its trains on the order of the commission, and that the complainant would therefore be compelled to comply with the order or be subject to a multiplicity of suits for penalties arising from each and every violation of the order, and that defendants threaten by suit to enforce the order. It was then averred that the order of the commission was a direct burden upon interstate commerce, and also a direct and unnecessary interference with the speedy carriage of the mails of the United States.

An amendment to the bill was subsequently filed, showing that Congress had granted a right of way and sections of land in the state of Illinois to aid in the construction of a railroad from the southern termination of the Illinois & Michigan Canal to a point at or near the junction of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, with branches, etc., which should remain a public highway for the use of the government of the United States, free from toll or other charges upon the transportation of any property or troops of the United States, and on which mails of the United States should at all times be transported, and the Congress had made like grants to the states of Alabama and Mississippi, respectively, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad from the city of Mobile to a point near the mouth of the Ohio river; and it was also averred that the state of Illinois had chartered the complainant in 1850, and ceded to it rights and lands granted to that state by the act of Congress.

The defendant commission answered and denied the averments in the bill, as already stated.

Messrs. Marcellus Green, Garner Wynn Green, William Williams, and J. N. Flowers for appellants.

Messrs. Edward Mayes and J. M. Dickinson for appellee.

Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham:

Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

The decision in this case by the circuit court of appeals is reported in 70 C. C. A. 617, 138 Fed. 327, in which will be found a statement of the material portions of the evidence taken at the hearing before the trial court. It is unnecessary to repeat it.

The first objection raised by the appellant is, that this suit is, in substance, one against a state. The commission was created by the state of Mississippi, under the authority of its Constitution and laws, for the purpose of supervising, and, to some extent, controlling, the acts of the railroads operating within the state. Such a commission is subject to a suit by a citizen. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. ed. 1014, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 560, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. ed. 819, 18 Sup....

To continue reading

Request your trial
105 cases
  • Town of Springfield, Vt. v. McCarren
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
    • October 15, 1982
    ...of sovereign immunity was a bar to this suit even in its original posture. Cf. Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 203 U.S. 335, 340, 27 S.Ct. 90, 92, 51 L.Ed. 209 (1906): "The first objection raised by the appellant is, that this suit is, in substance, one aga......
  • Clark v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 26, 1934
    ......523; Burnham. v. Sumner, 50 Miss. 517; Railroad Co. v. Crawford, 99 Miss. 679, 55 So. 596; State ...Nat. Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61; Central Lbr. Co. v. State, 126 U.S. 157;. Peninsular, ... statutes similar to that of the Mississippi statute has been. in issue. . . ... Supreme Court of Illinois held this statute to be. unreasonable and ...See State v. J. J. Newman Lumber Company, 102 Miss. 802, 59 So. 923, 45. L. R. A. (N. S.) ......
  • Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 7, 1929
    ......V. J. STRICKER, Chancellor. . . Suit by. the Mobile & Ohio Railroad, Company and another against the. Mississippi Railroad Commission and others, to enjoin and. have canceled ... or is unreasonable in the technical sense. . . Illinois. Central R. R. Co. v. Mississippi R. R. Commission, . 109 So. 868; 10 C. J. 414, 434, 435, 436; ......
  • Shepard v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • April 8, 1911
    ...... cent., and the orders of its Railroad and Warehouse. Commission of September 6, 1906, ... to the Northern Pacific Company an annual net income of only. 2.909 per cent., ...547; Wabash, St. L. & P.R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557, 570, 573, 7 Sup.Ct. 4, 30. L.Ed. ... 20 Sup.Ct. 722, 44 L.Ed. 868; Mississippi Railroad. Commission v. Illinois Central R. Co., ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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