Missouri Pac Ry Co v. State of Nebraska Board of Transportation, 1
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | GRAY |
| Citation | 41 L.Ed. 489,164 U.S. 403,17 S.Ct. 130 |
| Parties | MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. v. STATE OF NEBRASKA ex rel. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1896 |
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA ex rel. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION.
[Syllabus from pages 403-411 intentionally omitted]
Page 411
John F. Dillon, for plaintiff in error. A. S. Churchill and Geo. H. Hastings, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The arguments in this case have taken a wider range than is required for its decision. The material facts, as assumed by the court below, are as follows:
The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, a corporation of the state of Nebraska, was the owner of the right of way and depot grounds, within which were its main and side tracks, its stations and other shipping facilities, at Elmwood, in that state, and had permitted two elevators to be erected and operated by private firms on the side track at that station.
John W. Hollenbeck and others (apparently not a corporation, but a voluntary association of persons owning farms and leaseholds in the neighborhood of Elmwood, upon which they raised corn, wheat, oats, and other cereals, large quantities of which were ready for market) made an application in writing to the railway company to grant them 'a location on the right of way at Elmwood station aforesaid for the erection of an elevator of sufficient capacity to store from time to time the cereal products of the farms and leaseholds of' the applicants, 'as well as the products of other neighboring farms.' That application was refused by the railway company.
The applicants then made a complaint to the board of transportation of the state of Nebraska, alleging that the two elevators already built on the right of way of the rail-
Page 412
way company at Elmwood station were, 'during certain seasons of the year, wholly insufficient in affording a market for the cereals of the complainants and others desirous of marketing their grain,' and that the refusal of the railway company to grant to the complainants a location for an elevator was in violation of the Nebraska statute of 1887, c. 60, in that such refusal was an unjust discrimination, and that the railway company, by such refusal, was subjecting the complainants to an undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage in respect to traffic facilities, over other localities, and was giving an undue and unreasonable preference and advantage to the owners and operators of the two elevators already built at the station.
The board of transportation, after notice to the railway company, and hearing evidence and arguments, found that the two existing elevators were insufficient to handle the grain shipped at Elmwood station, and the owners and operators of those elevators had entered into a combination to fix the prices of grain, and to prevent competition in the price thereof, and there were not sufficient facilities for the handling and shipping of grain at that station; that it was necessary for the convenience of the public that another elevator should be erected and operated there; that, by reason of the side track being placed within the right of way and depot grounds, the complainants could not ship grain without building their elevator upon the grounds of the railway company; that there was room upon those grounds for another elevator, without materially interfering with the operation of the railroad, and the building of an elevator thereon by the complainants would not materially affect the railway company in the use of its grounds, or be an unreasonable burden to it; and that the granting by the railway company of the right and privilege to the owners of the two elevators now standing, and refusing to grant the like right and privilege to the complainants, was an unjust and unreasonable discrimination against the complainants, and unlawfully gave a preference and advantage to the owners of the two existing elevators.
Page 413
The board of transportation thereupon ordered that the railway company, within 10 days, grant to the complainants, on like terms and conditions as granted to the owners of the two existing elevators, the right and privilege of erecting an elevator upon its grounds, and adjacent to its track, at a point specified in the order, or at some other suitable and convenient place, if the parties could agree, and grant to the complainants all and equal facilities for the handling and shipping of grain at that station which it granted to other shippers of grain there, and cease from all discrimination or preference to and of shippers and operators of elevators at that station.
The railway company not having complied with the order, the supreme court of the state, upon a petition in the name of the state, at the relation of the board of transportation, for a mandamus, and an answer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larabee v. Dolley, 8,810
...113 U.S. 1, 5 Sup.Ct. 416, 28 L.Ed. 896; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223, 25 Sup.Ct. 18, 49 L.Ed. 169; Mo. Pac. Ry. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 17 Sup.Ct. 130, 41 L.Ed. 489; Dodge v. Mission Township, 107 F. 827, 46 C.C.A. 661, 54 L.R.A. 242; Crescent Liquor Co. v. Platt (C.C.) 148 F. 8......
-
Asarco Inc. v. Department of Ecology, No. 69406-1.
...is appropriately enjoined at the outset rather than allowed to proceed subject to compensation. See, e.g., Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 416, 17 S.Ct. 130, 41 L.Ed. 489 (1896) (court invalidates uncompensated taking of property for lack of justifying public purpose); Nollan v.......
-
California Kiwifruit Com. v. Moss, No. C018368
...374, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 2317, 129 L.Ed.2d 304, 317.) This case bears some resemblance to Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska (1896) 164 U.S. 403, 417, 17 S.Ct. 130, 135, 41 L.Ed. 489, 495, in which the Supreme Court concluded there had been a taking of private property for the private us......
-
Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, No. 85-5838
...to effect a taking than where it does. See Midkiff, 467 U.S. at 241, 104 S.Ct. at 2329 (distinguishing Missouri Pacific R.R. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 416, 17 S.Ct. 130, 135, 41 L.Ed. 489 (1896), on the ground that "the 'order in question was not, and was not claimed to be [emphasis origin......
-
Asarco Inc. v. Department of Ecology, No. 69406-1.
...is appropriately enjoined at the outset rather than allowed to proceed subject to compensation. See, e.g., Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 416, 17 S.Ct. 130, 41 L.Ed. 489 (1896) (court invalidates uncompensated taking of property for lack of justifying public purpose); Nollan v.......
-
California Kiwifruit Com. v. Moss, No. C018368
...374, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 2317, 129 L.Ed.2d 304, 317.) This case bears some resemblance to Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska (1896) 164 U.S. 403, 417, 17 S.Ct. 130, 135, 41 L.Ed. 489, 495, in which the Supreme Court concluded there had been a taking of private property for the private us......
-
State v. Sears, 27886.
...acquisitions.' In the following cases it is held that the right to use and possess is property: Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 17 S.Ct. 130, 41 L.Ed. 489; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223, 25 S.Ct. 18, 49 L.Ed. 169; Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. [4 Wn......
-
Chertkof v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Civ. A. No. M-79-2258.
...Tractor Co. v. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 252-53, 25 S.Ct. 251, 256, 49 L.Ed. 462 (1905); Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417, 17 S.Ct. 130, 135, 41 L.Ed. 489 (1896). See generally 2A Nichols, Eminent Domain § 7.311 (1979). Furthermore, allegations in a complaint ......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void”); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403 (1896). 5 Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a......
-
FEDERAL COURTS AND TAKINGS LITIGATION.
...(61) .See Muhlker v. N.Y. & Harlem R.R. Co., 197 U.S. 544, 570 (1905) (on direct review). (62) Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417 (1896) (applying, on direct review, a public use limitation to the commission's order that the railroad allow farmers to build a grain elevator......