Ruggles v. People of the State of Illinois
Decision Date | 07 May 1883 |
Citation | 2 S.Ct. 832,27 L.Ed. 812,108 U.S. 526 |
Parties | RUGGLES v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 526-527 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of Case from pages 527-528 intentionally omitted] Wirt Dexter and Sidney Bartlett, for plaintiff in error.
J. K. Edsall and Jas. McCartney, for defendant in error.
In the view we take of this case the only question that need by considered is whether the charter of the Central Military Tract Railroad Company, one of the Illinois corporations which, through agreements of consolidation, are now represented by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, purports on its face to grant to the company the right to fix the rates of fare and freight to be charged for the conveyance of persons and property on its railroad free of all control by the state. If, on examination, we find that no such grant was intended, it will be unnecessary to decide whether one legislature has the power to bind succeeding legislatures by a contract to that effect.
The provisions of the charter relied on to establish such a grant may be stated as follows:
On the fifth of November, 1849, an act was passed by the general assembly of Illinois 'to provide for a general system of railroad incorporation.' That act contained the following provisions:
* * *
'(8) To take, transport, carry, and convey persons and property on their railroad, by the force and power of steam, of animals, or any mechanical powers, or by any combination of them, and receive tolls or compensation therefor.
* * *
'(10) To regulate the time and manner in which passengers and property shall be transported, and the tolls and compensation to be paid therefor; but such compensation for any passenger and his ordinary baggage shall not exceed three cents a mile, unless by special act of the legislature, and shall be subject to alteration as hereinafter provided.
* * *
On the fifteenth of February, 1851, another act was passed to incorporate the Central Military Tract Railroad Company, for the purpose of building and using a railroad between certain designated points. Section 3 of that act is as follows:
On the nineteenth of June, 1852, another act was passed 'to amend an act entitled 'An act to incorporate the Central Military Tract Railroad Company." The following are the parts of this amending act on which, in our opinion, the case depends:
* * *
It is contended on the part of the company that this amending act repeals clause 10 of section 21 as well as section 32 of the general railroad law, so far as they are applicable to the Central Military Tract Company, and that under section 6 of the amending act the directors have absolute control of rates of fare and freight free of legislative interference. We deem it unnecessary to determine the question of repeal, because on full consideration we are satisfied that section 6 does not have the effect that is claimed for it.
Grants of immunity from legitimate governmental control are never to be presumed. On the contrary, the presumptions are all the other way, and unless an exemption is clearly established the legislature is free to act on all subjects within its general jurisdiction, as the public interest may seem to require. As was said by Chief Justice TANEY, speaking for the court, in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Craig v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans
...of Internal Revenue, (C. C. A.), 50 F.2d 742; Flannagan v. Providence Life and Acc. Ins. Co. (C. C. A.), 22 F.2d 136; Ruggles v. Ill., 108 U.S. 536, 27 L.Ed. 812; Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U.S. 414, 44 L.Ed. The law plainly exempts federal agencies and instrumentalities. Sec. 7, Chap. 93, L......
-
City of Pocatello v. Murray
... ... municipality filed its complaint in the state court, setting ... forth that the water rates charged by the defendant ... regulation. ( Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 24 ... L.Ed. 77.) ... "This ... power of ... be presumed. ( Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U.S. 526, 2 ... S.Ct. 832, 27 L.Ed. 812.) ... 303, 78 N.E. 64; Fulton v ... Hanlow, 20 Cal. 450; People v. Johnson, 38 N.Y ... 63, 97 Am. Dec. 770; Barnett v. Smart, 158 Mo ... ...
-
Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Los Angeles
... ... thereto, and also is in violation of the Constitution of the ... state of California ... That ... said Ordinance D is void, for that ... is well settled ( Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 24 ... L.Ed. 77; Chicago, etc., T.R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 ... v. Des Moines, 44 ... Iowa, 505, 24 Am.Rep. 756; People v. Suburban R.R ... Co., 178 Ill. 594, 53 N.E. 349, 49 L.R.A. 650; ... is an elementary principle. ' Ruggles v ... Illinois, 108 U.S. 526, 2 Sup.Ct. 832, 27 L.Ed. 812 ... ...
-
State v. Public Service Commission
...etc., Ry. Co., 111 N. C. 463, 16 S. E. 393, 18 L. R. A. 393, 32 Am. St. Rep. 805; Ruggles v. Illinois, 91 Ill. 256; Id., 108 U. S. 526, 2 Sup. Ct. 832, 27 L. Ed. 812; Winchester, etc., Ry. Co. v. Com., 106 Va. 264, 55 S. E. 692. While many of the above are cases wherein the question of the ......