Railroad Company v. Richmond Et Al

Decision Date01 October 1873
Citation86 U.S. 584,22 L.Ed. 173,19 Wall. 584
PartiesRAILROAD COMPANY v. RICHMOND ET AL
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa; the case being thus:

On the 22d of August, 1860, the Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad Company and the Dubuque Elevator Company, corporations, created both by the laws of Iowa, entered into a contract by which the elevator company was to construct an elevator for receiving, storing, handling, and delivering grain brought by the cars of the railroad company to Dubuque City. On the 2d of January, 1861, a supplemental agreement relating to the same subject was entered into between the same companies; the two contracts, as the court held, being, to be considered together as forming one.

By that contract the elevator company, on its part, stipulated, among other things, to erect on land leased from the railroad company, situated at Dubuque, in the State of Iowa, a building suitable for receiving, storing, delivering, and handling all grain that should be received by the cars of the railroad company, not otherwise consigned, and to make such additions to the building from time to time as the business of the company might require; to receive and discharge at Dubuque for the company all through grain—by which was meant all grain transmitted, by the terms of shipment through that place to some point beyond—at one cent a bushel, and make no charge for storage unless the grain was in store more than ten days, and then only at certain specified rates; and, at the end of fifteen years, the term of the lease, to renew the contract for another fifteen years, or, at the option of the railroad company, accept payment for its buildings, machinery, and other property used in conducting its business.

And the railroad company, on its part, stipulated that it would not erect a similar building for receiving, storing, delivering, and handling grain at Dubuque, or lease to any others the right to erect any such building; that the elevator company should have the handling at Dubuque of all through grain, and be paid one cent a bushel for receiving and discharging the same, and the compensation designated for storage when it exceeded ten days.

The elevator company erected the buildings required, sufficient and suitable for the purposes intended, and had always been ready to carry out its stipulations.

On the 13th of September, 1867, the Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad Company leased its road and other property to the Illinois Central Railroad Company. In this lease the Illinois company expressly assumed the contract mentioned, made with the elevator company, and soon afterwards entered into possession of the leased property, and commenced transferring grain from Dubuque across the Mississippi River, which had been brought to that point in the cars of the Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad Company. But it did not regard the stipulations of the contract with the elevator company, or only partially performed them; grain was shipped through Dubuque without being delivered to or handled by that company, and without payment of the charges which it claimed as entitled to under the contract; and the present suit was brought in a District Court of the State of Iowa by one Richmond, who had succeeded to the rights of the elevator company, to enforce the contract.

The defence was that the contract as now sued on was repugnant to what is called 'the commercial power of Congress' (the power given to Congress by the Constitution 'to regulate commerce among the several States'), as that power had been exercised in two several acts now to be spoken of: one was 'An act to facilitate commercial, postal, and military communication among the several States,'1 passed June 15th, 1866, the preamble and part of the first section of which were as follows:

'Whereas, the Constitution of the United States confers on Congress, in express terms, the power to regulate commerce among the several States, to establish post-roads, and to raise and support armies; therefore,

'Be it enacted, That every railroad company in the United States, whose road is operated by steam, its successors and assigns, be, and is hereby, authorized to carry upon and over its road, boats, bridges, and ferries, all passengers, troops, government supplies, mails, freight, and property on their way from any State to another State, and to receive compensation therefor, and to connect with roads of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Bowman v. Chicago Ry Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1888
    ...other states so as to form continuous lines for the transportation of the same to the place of destination.' In the case of Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584, this section, then constituting a part of the act of congress of June 15, 1866, was considered. Referring to this act and the a......
  • Gwin, White Prince v. Henneford
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1939
    ...equality and freedom in commercial intercourse against discriminating State legislation * * *.' Dubuque & S. C. Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584, 589, 22 L.Ed. 173. See also, County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691, 697, 26 L.Ed. 26 The Minnesota Rate Cases, supra, page 433, 33 S.Ct......
  • The State ex rel. Star Publishing Company v. The Associated Press
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1901
    ...River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 606, 607, per Story, J.; Railroad v. Richmond, 26 Iowa 191, 201, 202; affirmed, 86 U.S. 584, 19 Wall. 584, 22 L.Ed. 173; In Greene, 52 F. 104), and necessarily, the party to whom the license is granted, takes it on such conditions as the license-g......
  • Wiggins Ferry Company, And Respondent v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, And Respondent
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1895
    ...of Justices Walker, Breese and Scholfield; Wiggins Ferry Company v. Railroad, 142 U.S. 615; Bridge Co. v. Railroad, 37 F. 567; Railroad v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584; Richmond v. Railroad, 33 Iowa 497; Towboat v. Railroad, 24 La. Ann. 1. (5) An objection that the contract violates some rule of ......
  • 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