People ex rel. Healy v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

Citation233 Ill. 378,84 N.E. 368
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Decision Date10 April 1908
PartiesPEOPLE, ex Inf. of HEALY, State's Atty., v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al. SAME v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. et al. SAME v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. et al.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Lockwood Honore, Judge.

Informations in the nature of bills in equity by the people of the state of Illinois by John J. Healy, State's Attorney, on the relation of the Chicago Board of Trade, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company and others, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company and others, and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and others. From decrees dismissing the informations, the relator appeals. Affirmed.W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., John J. Healy, State's Atty., and Henry S. Robbins, for appellant.

John G. Drennan (W. S. Kenyon and J. M. Dickinson, of counsel), for appellee Illinois Central Railroad Company.

George P. Merrick, for other appellees.

This is an information in the nature of a bill in equity filed by the people of the state of Illinois, by the state's attorney of Cook county, on the relation of the Chicago Board of Trade, to enjoin the Illinois Central Railroad Company, the Central Elevator Company, and certain individuals who have the control and management of certain public grain elevators from discontinuing the operation of such grain elevators as public warehouses of class A. Upon the execution of a bond in the sum of $20,000 by the Chicago Board of Trade a temporary injunction was awarded in accordance with the prayer of the information. Subsequently, by amendment, the Chicago Board of Trade, as relator, was stricken from the information, and the cause thereafter proceeded in the name of the people, by John J. Healy, state's attorney of Cook county. The defendants filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, which, upon a hearing before Judge Honore, of the circuit court of Cook county, was sustained, and the information dismissed for want of equity. From this decree the people of the state of Illinois have prosecuted an appeal to this court.

By an order entered in vacation by Mr. Justice Carter, of this court, the temporary injunction was continued in force until the final hearing of this appeal. Similar informations were filed against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company and others, and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and others. These cases have been consolidated in this court, and will be disposed of as one case.

The material averments of the information are that the Illinois Central Railroad Company is a common carrier, created by special statute of this state, with power to locate, construct, maintain, and operate a railroad between different terminals in this state, and with power to acquire, by purchase or condemnation, and to hold, such real and personal estate as may be needful to carry into effect the purposes and objects of said special statute; that among other lands acquired by said company for railroad purposes were two parcels of land in Chicago contiguous to the Chicago river and Lake Michigan, upon which private parties erected two grain warehouses of a joint capacity of 2,500,000 bushels, equipped with different compartments, elevating machinery, and apparatus, in which warehouses grain of the same grade might be mixed and stored in bulk; that these warehouses were acquired by said railroad company and leased to private corporations, who have operated one or both as public warehouses of class A; that switch tracks were constructed by said company from its main lines to said warehouses, so that cars loaded with grain coming into Chicago over its lines could be run directly to said werehouses, and by means of said appliances such grain could be promptly and mechanically unloaded from cars to said elevators or warehouses and from said elevators or warehouses unloaded into vessels and other cars; that with the exception of a short period when said elevators were destroyed by the fire of 1871 at least one of said warehouses has been since 1856 continuously conducted and maintained, with the sanction of said railroad company, as a public warehouse of class A, and said railroad company has invited shippers of grain over its line to have grain shipped by them over said lines and unloaded into the said warehouses, and has held out such elevators or warehouses to the public as public warehouses, so that at all times since 1856, except during the interval of the rebuilding of the warehouses caused by the fire, every shipper of grain over said railroad has at all times been able to have his grain unloaded into a public warehouse in Chicago and to have issued to him a warehouse receipt representing said grain, and to have said grain there remain until the shipper could advantageously sell or reship the same, and in case of reshipment to other points, to expeditiously and economically and mechanically unload such grain upon cars or boats for reshipment, and no shipper of grain over said lines has since said year been obliged to unload said grain from cars, or been deprived of having his grain unloaded into a public grain elevator or warehouse, or been deprived of the facilities for economically and mechanically and expeditiously transferring said grain to other cars or boats, to be shipped to points beyond Chicago, which said warehouses afford; that grain shippers have become accustomed to rely upon and have adjusted their business methods to this manner of handling grain in Chicago; and that, if said warehouses were now to cease to be conducted as public warehouses of class A, irreparable injury would result to them.

The information, proceeding, stated the amount of grain shipped and stored for a period of 32 years, and that it would be impossible to properly handle or reship all grain coming into Chicago over the lines of said railroad without the use, as public warehouses, of one or both of said elevators, or others of like construction, situation, and capacity, and the issuance of warehouse receipts; that during all this time elevators have been operated by private parties, and that since 1886 said elevators have been leased to appellee the Central Elevator Company; that the appellees, the members of the firm of Bartlett, Frazier & Carrington, who were the stockholders of the appellee the Central Elevator Company, have announced that after July 1, 1907, ‘that would not comply with the rules of said board, and make their receipts regular for delivery upon contracts upon said board of trade’; and that neither of the said warehouses will remain or be conducted as a public warehouse. The information further says that there are now no other public grain warehouses, except one of the said elevators or warehouses operated by appellee the Central Elevator Company in the city of Chicago upon the lines of said Illinois Central Railroad Company; that if shippers of grain to Chicago over the lines of said railroad company were now to be deprived of having their grain unloaded into public warehouses and having it remain there until resold or reshipped, and having issued to them, while said grain is in store, warehouse receipts of the character to be current in Chicago, their right to market and sell their grain in Chicago will be much impaired; that the people, and especially those engaged in raising, shipping, handling, or selling of grain in this state, will be unduly prejudiced if a temporary injunction should not issue against appellees immediately and without notice.

The information further charges ‘that the Chicago Board of Trade has had for many years, and now has, a rule prescribing that to make elevator receipts issued by any public grain elevator in Chicago deliverable upon contracts made upon said board of trade the manager of such warehouse shall conduct such warehouse in accordance with the laws of the state of Illinois, and shall give a bond to the board of trade to protect its members against any failure of said warehouseman to properly conduct said warehouse; that for many years, and during all the time such rule has been in force, every public grain warehouse of class A in Chicago has complied with this requirement, and thereby made its receipts regular for delivery on the said board of trade, where most of the business of buying and selling grain for present and future delivery in the city of Chicago is transacted, * * * and that much of said grain since the year 1856 has been, and now is, sold upon such exchange for future delivery and before its arrival in Chicago; and that by the usages of trade and the rules of such exchange which have prevailed during all of said time such future contracts can only be performed by the delivery of warehouse receipts issued by public warehouses located in Chicago.’

VICKERS, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The question over which the most serious contention exists in this case is whether the railroad company has the power, under its charter, to mantain and operate, or cause to be operated, the elevators in question as public warehouses of class A. If the prayer for a perpetual injunction is granted, the duty of the railroad company to maintain these elevators as public warehouses would thereby be legally established. There are only two methods by which the railroad company could comply with the decree, if the injunction were granted. The railroad company must either operate the elevators itself, or lease them to other persons, and require the lessees to comply with the decree. If the latter course be pursued, the primary responsibility would rest on the railroad company. It could not excuse itself for a failure to obey the decree by showing that it had contracted with another to perform the duty required ot it.

Appellants suggest that the power of the railroad company to operate the elevators in question directly, as public warehouses, does not arise as a practical...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State ex Inf. Atty-Gen. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1928
    ...N.W. 162; Western Maryland Road Co. v. Hotel Co., 62 Atl. 353; 10 Cyc. 1097-1098; 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.) 780; People ex rel. Neely v. Railroad Co., 233 Ill. 378; Chicago Gas Co. v. Peoples Gas Co., 121 Ill. 530; Rockhold v. Benefit Co., 129 Ill. 440; Canal v. Conkling, 272 Ill. 318;......
  • State v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 28, 1910
    ...the company to perform its duty as a common carrier were within its charter powers. People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 233 Ill. 378, 84 N. E. 368,16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 604, 122 Am. St. Rep. 181;Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People, 119 Ill. 137, 6 N. E. 451;Illinois Central Railroad ......
  • State ex inf. Gentry v. Long-Bell Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1928
    ... ... Routledge, 175 S.W. 444; State ... ex rel. v. Togler, 55 Ohio St. 61; State v. Stock ... Co., 38 ... Cas. (D. C.) 503; ... Sec. 9736, R. S. 1919; People ex rel. v. Beach, 57 ... How. Prac. 336; Hollender v ... Shoe Corp ... (Mo.), 269 S.W. 597; Jessup v. Ill. Cent ... Railroad, 43 F. 483; Louisville Property Co. v ... ...
  • Mississippi-Gulfport Compress & Warehouses, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1940
    ... ... 88, 57 L.Ed. 431; ... State of Washington ex rel. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co ... v. Fairchild, 56 L.Ed ... the use of certain property ... People ... ex rel. Healy v. I. C. R. R. Co., 233 Ill. 378, 84 ... ...
  • 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