The Missouri v. Sinclair

• Decision Date: 08 February 1908
• Docket Number: 15,117
• Citation: 77 Kan. 228,94 P. 123
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. CHARLES SINCLAIR et al., as Partners, etc

94 P. 123

77 Kan. 228

THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. CHARLES SINCLAIR et al., as Partners, etc

No. 15,117

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 8, 1908

Decided January, 1908.

Error from Anderson district court; CHARLES A. SMART, judge.

Judgment reversed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

RAILROADS--Free Transportation to Shippers of Live Stock--Interstate Commerce. The case of The State v. Otis, 60 Kan. 248, 56 P. 14, followed, and held, that chapter 354 of the Laws of 1905, providing that railroad companies shall furnish free transportation to shippers of live stock in certain cases, and authorizing actions to be brought to recover penalties for its violation, has no application to interstate shipments.

John Madden, and W. W. Brown, for plaintiff in error.

Noah L Bowman, for defendants in error.

OPINION

PORTER, J.:

The firm of Sinclair & Wallace shipped a car-load of stock from Kincaid, Kan., to Kansas City, Mo., over plaintiff in error's road. Transportation to Kansas City was furnished one of the firm, who accompanied the stock, but the railway company refused his request for free passage back to Kincaid and he was obliged to pay his return fare. The firm then brought this action, under chapter 354 of the Laws of 1905, to recover double the fare paid and an attorney's fee. The action was begun in a justice court and transferred to the district court, where it was tried to a jury. Plaintiffs recovered judgment for $ 5.10, and $ 35 attorney's fee. The railway company brings error.

Plaintiffs' bill of particulars alleged that the stock was shipped from Kincaid to Kansas City, Mo., and that the demand was for return transportation between these places. Plaintiffs' proof established both allegations. Defendant demurred to the evidence, but the demurrer was overruled. A peremptory instruction to find for defendant was also refused, and the jury were instructed in substance that, if they found the facts to be true as alleged, then under the law plaintiffs were entitled to recover. All of these rulings were erroneous. Under the claim as set out in the bill of particulars and as proved the shipment was interstate. The exact question, except that it arose under the statute of 1897 which contained substantially the same provisions, was decided in The State v. Otis, 60 Kan. 248, 56 P. 14, and the point is ruled by the decision in that case. It was there said:

"Assuming, but not deciding, that the law is valid as a regulation of shipments between points in Kansas, it certainly is without effect as to shipments from one state to another."

The act under consideration in the present case relates to the transportation by railroad companies of shipments of live stock, and provides penalties for...