Missouri, Kansas Texas Railway Company v. Hickman
Decision Date | 11 November 1901 |
Docket Number | No. 11,11 |
Citation | 183 U.S. 53,46 L.Ed. 78,22 S.Ct. 18 |
Parties | MISSOURI, KANSAS, & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Piff. in Err. , v. H. W. HICKMAN, James Cowgil, and Joseph Flory, Constituting the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners of the State of Missouri |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case involves the question of removal from a state to a Federal court.
The state of Missouri has a body of statutes for the regulation of railroads. By one section a board of railroad commissioners is created. To this board is committed the duty of supervising the conduct and charges of railroads, of hearing and deciding complaints against them, and making such orders as the circumstances require. Section 1143, Rev. Stat. Mo. (1899), identical with § 2646, Rev. Stat. Mo. (1889), contains this provision:
The section also authorizes the commissioners to summon witnesses, to punish for failure or refusal to attend or testify, declares that any common carrier wilfully or knowingly obstructing of preventing the commissioners from making such investigations shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine. Other sections provide for penalties and forfeitures. In § 1144, the same as § 2647, Rev. Stat. 1889, is this clause:
Section 1150 (§ 2653, Rev. Stat. 1889) reads as follows:
Under the authority of these statutes, upon a hearing after complaint and notice, the railroad commissioners found that the railway company was charging excessive and illegal rates for travel over what is known as the Boonville bridge across the Missouri river, and made and entered of record an order directing it to discontinue such charges. This order was dated July 22, 1895. The railway company not complying with the order, a suit was instituted on August 17, 1895, in the circuit court of Cooper county, Missouri, by such commissioners, setting forth the facts and praying process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain the defendant from further continuing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fox Film Corporation v. Trumbull
...has been adhered to. Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 67, 17 S. Ct. 265, 41 L. Ed. 632; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Missouri Railroad & Warehouse Commissioners, 183 U. S. 53, 59, 22 S. Ct. 18, 46 L. Ed. 78. Whether the statute complained of does violate the Constitution of the United States ......
-
Ex parte Edward Young
...165 U. S. 58-67, 41 L. ed. 632, 633, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265. And see Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Missouri R. & Warehouse Comrs. (Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Hickman) 183 U. S. 53, 46 L. ed. 78, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18. The cases above cited do not include one exactly like this under discussion. T......
-
People of Puerto Rico v. Russell Co Sucesores En 10 8212 13, 1933
...119 U.S. 473, 475, 7 S.Ct. 260, 30 L.Ed. 461; Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co., supra; see Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Commissioners, 183 U.S. 53, 58, 22 S.Ct. 18, 46 L.Ed. 78; Stone v. South Carolina, supra, 117 U.S. 433, 6 S.Ct. 799, 29 L.Ed. We do not overlook the point th......
-
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama
... ... Company, the Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad ... Company, the Southern Railway Company, the Central of Georgia ... Railway ... In ... Missouri Railway Co. v. Missouri Railroad Commission, ... Circuit Courts. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Texas Pacific ... Railway Co. (C.C.) 51 F. 529; L. & ... ...