State ex rel. Railroad and Warehouse Commission v. Adams Express Company
| Decision Date | 20 November 1896 |
| Docket Number | 10,177--(39) |
| Citation | 68 N.W. 1085,66 Minn. 271 |
| Parties | STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION v. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Egan, J., denying a motion to quash an alternative writ of mandamus. Affirmed.
Order affirmed and case remanded.
F. F Davis, for appellant.
H. W Childs and Geo. B. Edgerton, for respondent.
This was a proceeding, by an alternative writ of mandamus, to compel the Adams Express Company, doing business as a common carrier in this state, to print, and keep for public inspection, schedules showing the classification, rates fares, and charges for the transportation of property of all kinds and classes in force and charged by it in this state and to file a copy of such schedules with the railroad and warehouse commission. The writ was issued on the relation of the commission, relying on the provisions of Laws 1895, c. 152, and the several laws therein referred to; and, when allowed by the court, it was ordered that service be made by delivering to, and leaving with, J. W. Owens, general agent of the company, a copy of the writ, of the petition, and of the order. On the return day the company appeared specially, and moved to quash the writ on the ground that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the company; such motion being based on all of the proceedings and two affidavits, from which it appeared that Owens, on whom service had been made, was the local agent at St. Paul, and not the general agent, and that the company was not a corporation, but a joint-stock association, organized in the state of New York, composed of a large number of shareholding members, all nonresidents. The motion being denied, the company appeals.
In directing that service be made in a certain specified way, the court below observed the requirements of G. S. 1894, § 5979, which provides that the court or judge, by an indorsement on the writ of mandamus, shall allow the same, designate the return day, and direct the manner of serving a copy of the writ, of the allowance thereof, and of any order or direction of the court indorsed on the writ. It is also provided, by section 399, that whenever a common carrier refuses or neglects to obey any lawful order or requirement of the commission, made under the provisions of the statute under which it acts, an application may be made to the court, alleging such disobedience, and the court is given power to hear and determine the matter on short notice to the carrier; such notice to be served on the carrier, his or its officers, agents, or servants, in such manner as the court shall direct.
That the regulation of the business conducted by common carriers is one over which the legislature has full power to act, and that ample authority can by law be conferred upon the railroad and warehouse commission to call on any carrier doing business within our borders, whether a natural or artificial person, resident or nonresident, for such information as is absolutely essential for the proper conduct of the carrier and the protection of the public, ought not to be questioned. Counsel does not contend to the contrary at this time, but his claim is that service of the writ made in the manner designated by the court, and as such service was attempted to be made in this instance, is insufficient to confer any jurisdiction over the company, a joint-stock association, -- a co-partnership, -- as is claimed; none of its shareholders having been served, or having voluntarily appeared.
It is urged, in support of this contention, that when the legislature attempted to confer upon the courts the power to determine the manner, or upon whom, writs of mandamus shall be served (section 5979), or the manner, or upon whom, the notice prescribed in section 399 shall be served, it delegated its powers to the judiciary, and that the latter branch of the government, when acting, assumes a power purely legislative, forbidden by the constitution; or, if this position is not sustainable, that any statute which empowers or permits a court to direct that service of a writ or order, based on an alleged disobedience or violation of a public duty by a common carrier, may be made upon its agents or servants, authorizes jurisdiction over such carrier to be obtained without due process of law, -- also a violation of a constitutional right. If the claim last mentioned is well founded, a nonresident corporation, association, co-partnership, or individual, engaged in business in this state as a common carrier, would seem to be beyond the reach of process of the courts or of orders emanating...
To continue reading
Request your trial