State v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtBurgess
Citation75 S.W. 776,176 Mo. 687
Decision Date15 June 1903
PartiesSTATE ex inf. CROW, Atty. Gen., v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
75 S.W. 776
176 Mo. 687.
STATE ex inf. CROW, Atty. Gen.,
v.
ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO.*
Supreme Court of Missouri.
June 15, 1903.

RAILROADS — TERMINALS — RECONSIGNMENT CHARGES — QUO WARRANTO — INTERSTATE COMMERCE—POWERS OF COMMISSION—EXCLUSIVENESS.

1. The imposition of a reconsignment charge by railroad companies having switch tracks within a city, whereby a certain charge is made for the delivery of each car of grain from the track upon which it is originally placed to that designated by the consignee, is a matter of private concern between the railroad companies and the consignees, and not one of public interest, and quo warranto will not lie to prevent the companies from making such charge.

2. Rev. St. 1899, §§ 1112-1115, requiring delivery by the initial carrier of freight upon any track it owns, leases, or uses, or can use, does not prevent such initial carrier from assessing a reconsignment charge for delivering a shipment upon another track than that upon which it was originally placed.

3. Quo warranto will not lie to prevent the violation of a custom of railroads having switch tracks in a city to deliver consignments of goods from one track to another without making extra charge therefor.

4. Interstate Commerce Law, §§ 1-9, Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, 382 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3154-3159], provides that all charges for service rendered in transportation of property, or for receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reasonable and just, and prohibits unjust discrimination, and prohibits the making or giving of any undue or unreasonable preference. It is further provided that for any violation of the act the carrier shall be liable to the person injured thereby, and that any person claiming to be damaged may either make complaint to the interstate commerce commission or sue in his own behalf, etc. Other sections of the act furnish remedy by way of injunction in the Circuit Court of the United States. Held, that the remedies afforded by the act extend to the regulation of charges imposed by railroad companies for the transportation of consignments from the part of a city to which they were originally delivered to some other part at the consignee's order, and exclude the review of such questions by quo warranto in the state courts.

5. Under Rev. St. 1899, c. 12, arts. 2, 4, establishing a state railroad commission, prescribing their powers and duties, and declaring that, if any private individual sustain damages by reason of any fault of a railroad, he shall be afforded redress by resort to a state court, or by complaint to the railroad commission, quo warranto will not lie to prevent railroad companies from making reconsignment charges for delivering cars from the track in a city upon which they are first placed to another track designated by the consignee; the remedy provided by statute being exclusive.

In Banc. Quo warranto by the state, on the information of Edward C. Crow, Attorney General, against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company. Writ quashed.

[75 S.W. 777]

Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., Frank Hagerman, and Adiel Sherwood, for relator. Edward D. Kenna, Robert Dunlap, Gardiner Lathrop, and Samuel W. Moore, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.


This is a proceeding by quo warranto, ex informatione the Attorney General, against the respondent, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company, a railroad corporation doing business in this state, to oust it from the exercise of certain rights, privileges, and franchises alleged to be illegally exercised by it. The information alleges that the respondent is a corporation of the state of Kansas, operating lines of railway extending through the territory of Oklahoma and the states of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri, to Chicago, Ill., and extending west and south from Kansas City to San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, Cal., and the Rio Grande river; that it has no authority to do any business in Missouri, except as a foreign railroad corporation, having complied with its laws and obtained a certificate to do business in the state; that Kansas City is a market city for grain and grain products, with large mills and elevator facilities, and, being located on the lines of many railroads, it reaches the Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern markets; that it is important to the people of this state that Kansas City be maintained as a grain market; that there is in Kansas City a large number of firms or companies, employing a large number of men and having a large investment of capital in the business of dealing in, buying, selling, storing, and handling of grain, many of them doing business as commission merchants, and all of whom have made their investments upon the faith of the course of business hereinafter stated; that Chicago and the cities and towns upon the Mississippi river are strong competitors of Kansas City for grain; that it has been customary to ship grain to Kansas City in car and train load lots, and place the same on what are called "hold tracks," for inspection, barter, and sale, and subsequent directions for delivery in the city of its destination; that on the faith of such universal custom and usage large numbers of the citizens of this state, and especially said persons at Kansas City, have engaged in the grain, elevator, milling, feed, and stock business, and invested large sums of money therein; that the course of business has been, in shipping grain to Kansas City, for the shippers to draw drafts against the shipments with bills of lading attached, with the right to the consignee to inspect the shipments on the "hold tracks" before making payment of such drafts; that about 57,000 cars of grain are brought into the Kansas City market and placed upon the "hold tracks" in the course of a year, of which about 67 per cent. is brought in by the Santa Fé, Missouri Pacific, Rock Island, and Burlington Railway Companies; that up to July 28, 1902, the universal custom at Kansas City and all cities west of the Mississippi river had not only been to place the cars upon the "hold tracks," but to take them from thence to the point of delivery in said city designated by the consignee, without additional charge for so much of the carriage as passed over the tracks of the initial carrier or the tracks used by it; that switching charges over the tracks of connecting lines were made, averaging $3 per car; that 48 hours' free time for inspection, sale, and delivery of cars, after arrival on "hold tracks," is allowed, a charge of $1 per day per car being thereafter charged for demurrage; that the grain coming to Kansas City is largely sent to elevators for cleaning and grading and subsequent shipment out; that there are a number of lines of railway, of which Kansas City is the western terminus, which are the competitors of respondent and the other through lines above mentioned for traffic destined from or through Kansas City to Eastern and Southern points, and such companies seek to carry a part of the grain brought into Kansas City by respondent to points east, south, and north of Kansas City; that respondent and other through lines use every effort and endeavor to carry all the grain brought through or to Kansas City by them from points on their lines to points east, north, and south of Kansas City; that, if they succeed, competition between the various railroads for the haul east, north, and south of Kansas City will be destroyed, which competition is beneficial to the public; that the Burlington, Missouri Pacific, Santa Fé, and Rock Island Railway Companies are the only companies having lines extending from the west through Kansas City, extending east thereof, and reaching the Gulf ports and the ports upon the Great Lakes; that said four companies have adopted the practice of having large elevators constructed on their lines in the heart of the grain producing country, for the storage of grain, for the purpose of having such grain carried over their lines for the longest possible distance, and to said Gulf and Lake ports, and they seek to impose a reconsignment charge at Kansas City of a sufficient amount to deter producers of grain from shipping the same to the Kansas City market; that to protect themselves against those producers and dealers who will not ship over the lines of said four companies to markets east and south of Kansas City, said companies conspired and confederated to adopt some device or scheme in the way of an unlawful delivery charge for delivery at said Kansas City from the "hold tracks" to the point in Kansas City, Mo., designated by the consignee, which would enable them to haul out of Kansas City practically all the grain destined east, north, and south thereof; that such scheme is oppressive to the public, a burden to the Kansas City market, interferes with shipments thereto, and places the

75 S.W. 778

consumers, merchants, and people of that city, and those there dealing in grain, at a disadvantage in attempting to compete with the Eastern, Northern, and Southern markets; that the result of the combination and conspiracy is to divert grain from the Kansas City market, which legitimately would flow to the said market, or pass through the same for sale and ultimate disposition; that said grain is concentrated at Western points and shipped over said lines to points south, east, and north of Kansas City; that the device and scheme so adopted was this: that said four through lines would make an extra charge, called a "reconsignment charge," of $2 per car for delivering any car of grain in Kansas City, Mo., at any connection with any other railroad, or at any warehouse or mill or elevator or private industry therein, in addition to the switching and demurrage charges hereinbefore mentioned, and in addition to the freight charge made for carrying such grain to the consignee at Kansas City; that notice thereof was given, making said charge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • State ex Inf. Huffman v. Show-Me Power Co-Op., No. 38883.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 14, 1946
    ...283 Mo. 115, 223 S.W. 75; State ex rel. Pickett v. Cairns, 305 Mo. 333, 265 S.W. 527; State ex inf. Crow v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 176 Mo. 687, 75 S.W. 776. Gregory C. Stockard, amicus curiae. (1) An interpretation that the Cooperative Companies Act does not authorize the incorporatio......
  • State ex Inf. Atty-Gen. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., No. 27342.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 7, 1928
    ...State ex inf. Killam v. Cons. School Dist., 277 Mo. 471; State ex rel. v. Branch, 28 Mo. App. 131; State ex inf. Crow v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 687; State v. Thresher Mfg. Co., 40 Minn. 225; State ex inf. Atty.-Gen. v. Delmar Jockey Club, 230 Mo. 34. No writ of quo warranto in Missouri has ever ......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Wymore, No. 35738.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 28, 1938
    ...right and issues as a matter of course upon demand of the Attorney General State ex inf. Crow, Attorney General, v. A., T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 176 Mo. 687, 75 S.W. 776; State ex rel. v. Cupples Sta. L., H. & P. Co., 283 Mo. 115, 223 S.W. 75; State ex rel. v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379; State ex rel. W......
  • Kosman v. Thompson, No. 37547.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 17, 1927
    ...111 U. S. 449, 4 S. Ct. 437, 28 L. Ed. 482;Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. State, 154 Ala. 156, 45 So. 296;State v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 176 Mo. 687, 75 S. W. 776, 63 L. R. A. 761;State v. McLain, 58 Ohio St. 313, 50 N. E. 907;State v. Evans, 33 S. C. 612, 12 S. E. 816;Wright v. Lee, 4 S. D.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • State ex Inf. Huffman v. Show-Me Power Co-Op., No. 38883.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 14, 1946
    ...283 Mo. 115, 223 S.W. 75; State ex rel. Pickett v. Cairns, 305 Mo. 333, 265 S.W. 527; State ex inf. Crow v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 176 Mo. 687, 75 S.W. 776. Gregory C. Stockard, amicus curiae. (1) An interpretation that the Cooperative Companies Act does not authorize the incorporatio......
  • State ex Inf. Atty-Gen. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., No. 27342.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 7, 1928
    ...State ex inf. Killam v. Cons. School Dist., 277 Mo. 471; State ex rel. v. Branch, 28 Mo. App. 131; State ex inf. Crow v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 687; State v. Thresher Mfg. Co., 40 Minn. 225; State ex inf. Atty.-Gen. v. Delmar Jockey Club, 230 Mo. 34. No writ of quo warranto in Missouri has ever ......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Wymore, No. 35738.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 28, 1938
    ...right and issues as a matter of course upon demand of the Attorney General State ex inf. Crow, Attorney General, v. A., T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 176 Mo. 687, 75 S.W. 776; State ex rel. v. Cupples Sta. L., H. & P. Co., 283 Mo. 115, 223 S.W. 75; State ex rel. v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379; State ex rel. W......
  • Kosman v. Thompson, No. 37547.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 17, 1927
    ...111 U. S. 449, 4 S. Ct. 437, 28 L. Ed. 482;Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. State, 154 Ala. 156, 45 So. 296;State v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 176 Mo. 687, 75 S. W. 776, 63 L. R. A. 761;State v. McLain, 58 Ohio St. 313, 50 N. E. 907;State v. Evans, 33 S. C. 612, 12 S. E. 816;Wright v. Lee, 4 S. D.......
  • 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