Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Grew Coal Company

• Decision Date: 21 May 1917
• Docket Number: No. 222,222
• Citation: 61 L.Ed. 1075,37 S.Ct. 518,244 U.S. 191
• Parties: MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. McGREW COAL COMPANY. 1
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

244 U.S. 191

37 S.Ct. 518

61 L.Ed. 1075

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v McGREW COAL COMPANY.¹

No. 222.

Argued April 26, 1917.

Decided May 21, 1917.

Messrs. James F. Green and Edward J. White for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Edwin A. Krauthoff, Alexander Graves, William S. McClintock, Arthur L. Quant, and Maurice McNeill for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant in error filed a petition containing forty-seven counts in the Lafayette circuit court, seeking to recover what it paid in excess of alleged lawful freight rates upon as many shipments of coal from Myrick, Missouri, to other points in that state. The first count follows. It is identical in substance with all others except as to dates, amount of coal shipped, charges paid, destination, and comparative rates.

'Plaintiff avers that on April, 1908, it was and still is a coal mining company incorporated under the law of the state of Missouri.

'Plaintiff, for first cause of action, avers that on October 1879, the defendant was and has been ever since a railroad corporation duly organized under the law of said state and a common carrier for hire of freight and passengers between its stations, hereinafter named, in said state.

'That within five years last past and on the dates hereinafter named plaintiff produced and sold bituminous coal from its own mines near Myrick, one of defendant's stations in said county, and that on the various dates named in exhibit No. 1, and in the cars therein described by number and initial, it shipped by defendant's road from said Myrick in the aggregate 867,000 pounds of its said coal in carload lots to the consignee named in said exhibit at Strasburg, Missouri, another station on defendant's road.

'Plaintiff avers that for the said carriage of the said coal defendant fixed, charged, and demanded and received of the plaintiff 80 cents per ton, an illegal freight rate, being 30 cents per ton more than defendant was by law entitled to fix, demand, charge, and receive, in this: that during all said times and dates herein named defendant had fixed, charged, demanded, and received for the carriage for the same class of coal over its said line and over another part of said road from its station of Liberal, Missouri, and to another of its said stations, viz., Granby, in said state, a distance of 77.14 miles, 50 cents per ton by the carload, while the distance from said Myrick to said Strasburg was only 61.95 miles, for which said rate of 80 cents per ton for said carriage fixed, charged, demanded, and received of plaintiff as aforesaid; and the same was illegal and exceeded the amount the defendant was entitled to fix, charge, demand, and receive for said shipments by the sum of $130.05.

'And the plaintiff avers that it is damaged and aggrieved by reason of said illegal freight charge in the sum of $130.05; wherefore it prays judgment for the same and for damages not exceeding $1,000, and for all other and general relief, according to the statutes in such case made and provided.'

The answer to count one,—identical in effect with answers to all others,—formal and some presently unimportant parts being omitted, follows:

'Comes now the defendant and for answer to the first count of plaintiff's petition states that the same is founded upon the Session Laws of Missouri 1872, page 69, now §§ 3173 and 3211 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909, and § 12 of article 12 of the Constitution of Missouri 1875, and that said sections are null and void and of no legal force and effect for the following reasons:

'(a) Because said §§ 3173 and 3211 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909, when enacted by the legislature, were passed in violation of § 32 of article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri 1865, in this: . . .

'(b) Because said §§ 3173 and 3211 are repugnant to and in violation of § 14 of article 12 of the Constitution of Missouri 1875, in this: . . .

'(c) Because said §§ 3173 and 3211, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909, when reenacted by the legislature in 1879, were not legally re-enacted, but were enacted in violation of § 28 of article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri 1875, in this: . . .

'(d) Because said §§ 3173 and 3211 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909 were repealed by an act of the legislature passed in 1887, entitled, 'An Act to Regulate Railroad Corporations,' passed at the extra session of 1887, same being found in the Session Laws of 1887 at page 15, now §§ 3185 and 3193 of the Revised Statutes 1909.

'For further answer to said count, the defendant says that § 12 of article 12 of the Constitution of Missouri 1875, and §§ 3173 and 3211 and §§ 3185 and 3193 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909, are in violation of § 1 of article 14 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United State in this: that said sections of the Constitution of Missouri and of the Revised Statutes of Missouri deprive defendant of its property without due process of law and deny to it the equal protection of the laws.

'. . . Sections 3173 and 3211 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909 are repugnant to and in violation of article 5 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States in this: That said sections deprive the defendant of its property without due process of law.

'. . . Sections 3173 and 3211 and §§ 3185 and 3193 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909, and § 12 of article 12 of the Constitution of Missouri 1875, are in conflict with § 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States and the various laws passed by Congress thereunder in this: that the said defendant is engaged in interstate commerce and owns and operates various lines of railroad as a part of its system which run into other states than Missouri, and into the states of Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Illinois, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and that the train in which the plaintiff's property described in said count was being transported was at the time engaged in interstate commerce and contained carload lots and shipments of merchandise consigned and being carried from points without the state of Missouri to points within this state, and from points within this state to points without the same, and from points without this state across the state of Missouri and to points in other states, and that, by reason of the premises, this state is without jurisdiction to adopt and pass the sections named and to enforce the provisions of the same against this defendant while so engaged in interstate commerce.

'. . . Sections 3173 and 3211 and §§ 3185 and 3193 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909, and § 12 of article 12 of the Constitution of Missouri 1875, are in conflict with § 8 of article 1 of the Con- stitution of the United States and the various laws passed by Congress thereunder in this: that the defendant's railroad is an interstate road and its lines extend over and through the states of Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Illinois, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and that it is engaged in interstate commerce over its said lines through all of said states, and operates trains over the same in transporting freight and passengers through said states; that said section of the Constitution of Missouri and sections of the Revised Statutes seek to compel the defendant arbitrarily to fix its rates in this state and in all of said states, and in comparison with rates existing in all such states, without regard to the laws passed by Congress regulating interstate commerce.

'. . . Defendant denies each and every allegation therein contained. . . .'

Upon motion, the trial court struck from the answer 'all alleged defenses pleaded to each of the counts in the petition except the traverses.' No evidence was offered except the stipulation quoted below:

'It is hereby stipulated between the parties that the defendant's stations, the rates charged by the defendant, including those paid by the plaintiff, the amount of coal transported, and the distance set out in the several counts of the petition, are correctly stated therein. It is further stipulated that such coal was delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant for shipment in the usual and ordinary way without any direction or request by plaintiff as to what particular trains the same was to be transported in, and that the defendant received and transported the same in the usual and ordinary course of business, on the usual trains passing over its road. It is further agreed that the trains in which the defendant hauled said cars of coal contained other cars...