Vincent v. the Chicago
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
| Citation | 49 Ill. 33,1868 WL 5171 |
| Parties | BETHOLD B. VINCENT et al.v.THE CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago.
The opinion states the case.
Mr. J. D. CATON, Messrs. WILLIAMS & THOMPSON and Mr. EMERY A. STORRS, for the appellants.
Messrs. WALKER & DEXTER, for the appellee.
This was a bill for an injunction, brought by the appellants, against the appellee. The defendant demurred to the bill. The motion for an injunction and the demurrer were heard at the same time. The demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed, whereupon the complainants appealed.
The substance of the bill is briefly and correctly stated in one of the arguments for appellants, as follows:
“The complainants own and occupy a warehouse in the city of Chicago, known as the National Elevator, situated upon the line of the defendant's railroad, and connected with it by a side track about one hundred and fifty feet in length, and situated two blocks from the freight depot, and between that and the passenger depot. The warehouse is provided with all the ordinary machinery and conveniences for the handling of grain in bulk; and the owners had established, and, up to the time of the acts complained of in the bill, were conducting a large and profitable business as warehousemen. The greater part of the business of the complainants consisted in the storing and the transfer of grain which was transported over the defendant's road, and up to about the 1st day of May last, the defendant had delivered to the complainants all the grain consigned to them, without objection.
The side track connecting the defendant's road with the complainants' warehouse was constructed under the following circumstances: The grantors of the complainants then being the owners of the lot upon which the warehouse is situated, and through which the road of the defendant passes, on the 18th of September, 1860, conveyed to the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway a strip of land through the lot, to be used by the railroad company as a right of way, the grant being subject to the following, among other, conditions: ‘That said railroad company shall, when required, construct on and for the use of the owners of said lot two (2), in block seventy (70), free of charge, a side track and switches, in all respects equal to those used by the company.’ This agreement was recorded, and the defendant had notice of the conditions. Subsequently the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway conveyed an undivided half of its right of way to the Joliet & Chicago Railroad, of which the defendant's railroad is the successor, and the right of way is now jointly owned and used by the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway and the defendant.
On or about May 6, 1868, the defendant began to refuse to deliver into the complainants' warehouse the grain consigned to it, although received by the defendant with proper directions as to its delivery, and to deliver all grain transported over its road into the warehouse of Munn & Scott, even when consigned by the shipper to the National Elevator; and on the 28th of April, 1868, the defendant issued the following notice:
On and after May 11th, and until further notice, grain may be consigned to the National Elevator, Chicago, if shippers so order, at an additional charge of five dollars per car, for delivery of cars at elevator, on all grain so consigned. Agents will add five dollars per car to our charges on the way bill. All unconsigned bulk grain will be delivered to the Union Elevator, as heretofore. Please notify shippers.
T. B. BLACKSTONE,
President and General Superintendent.
JAMES SMITH, General Freight Agent.
After May 11th, and up to the time of filing the bill, the defendant has, in some instances, refused to deliver to the complainants the grain consigned to them, and this absolutely and irrespective of charges, and in other cases has refused to deliver them grain, except upon the payment by the shipper of five dollars per car, in addition to the regular charges for freight.
It is alleged in the bill, that the complainants' warehouse is as conveniently situated, with reference to the delivery of cars into it, as any of the elevators or other private business places in the city; that it is the uniform custom for railroads to deliver freight into such places free of charge; and if such delivery is a proper subject of charge, that five dollars per car is excessive and extortionate, and wholly disproportionate to the service rendered. It is also alleged, that the acts of the defendant cause an irreparable injury to the complainants, and that the defendant threatens to continue them. The bill concludes with a prayer that the defendant be restrained from delivering cars of grain, consigned to the complainants, to the warehouse of Munn & Scott, or any other place except as consigned; and also from imposing the charge of five dollars per car for delivery at elevator, or any other excessive charge.”
The demurrer admits the statements of the bill to be true.
It will be seen, from the foregoing abstract of the bill, that the questions presented by this record in brief are, whether the appellants have a legal right to insist upon a delivery, at their elevator or warehouse, of grain consigned to them, without discriminating charges against them, such warehouse being connected with the line of the railway in the manner above stated, and, if they have such right, whether the powers of a court of chancery can be invoked to protect it.
The rule of the common law, requiring common carriers by land to deliver to the consignee, has been so far relaxed in regard to railways, from necessity, as, in most cases, to substitute, in place of personal delivery, a delivery at the warehouse or depot provided by the companies for the storage of goods. It has repeatedly been held by this court, that a railway company may discharge itself of its liability, as a common carrier, by safely depositing goods in its warehouse, and there holding them, under the responsibilities of a warehouseman, until demanded by the consignee. These decisions proceed upon the ground that a railway has no means of delivery beyond its own lines. But the question presented by this record is of a different character.
There are some facts connected with the vast internal commerce of this State, of which, independent of any averments in the bill, we will take judicial notice. The immense quantities of grain which are annually transported to Chicago over our lines of railways, making that city, with the aid of contributions from neighboring States, one of the great grain markets of the world, are chiefly sent in bulk. The grain is ordinarily consigned to commission merchants who have erected vast warehouses, termed elevators, connected by side tracks with the main line of some railway, and provided with machinery for the rapid unloading of the cars, and storage of the grain. As the grain is of various grades and prices, it is of great importance to the agricultural and mercantile interests of the State that each shipment of grain should be stored by itself, or with grain of the same grade, and that every shipper should be able to select his own consignee, with the certainty that, if his elevator is on the line of the road by which the grain is transported, and the consignee is ready to receive the shipment, it shall be faithfully delivered to him. This arrangement is as advantageous to the railways as it is to the consignor and consignee. It would obviously be impossible for the companies to unload and store this grain at their ordinary freight depots, to be there held,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Star Publishing Company v. The Associated Press
... ... authority. On this principle of the common law, the right of ... the State to regulate the charges of grain elevators in ... Chicago was based in the great case of Munn v ... Illinois, 94 U.S. 118; and the doctrine in this last ... case was applied by the same court to the ... Railroad, 1 Com. B. (N. S.), 499; Garton v ... Railroad, 30 L. J. (Q. B.), 273; Sandford v ... Railroad, 24 Pa. St. 383; Vincent v. Railroad, ... 49 Ill. 33; Atwater v. Railroad, 48 N. J. L. 55; ... People v. Railroad, 130 Ill. 175; Railroad ... Commissioners v ... ...
-
Wiggins Ferry Company, And Respondent v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, And Respondent
...of Ill. [St. & C. Ed.], pp. 1921, 1952, 1954, 1955; 1 Stat. of Ill. [St. & C. Ed.], p. 563; Railroad v. People, 56 Ill. 369; Railroad v. Vincent, 49 Ill. 33; Pcople rel. v. Railroad, 55 Ill. 95; Railroad v. Smith, 62 Ill. 276; Railroad v. People, 67 Ill. 19; Hoyt v. Railroad, 93 Ill. 609; C......
-
State Ex Inf. Barker v. Kansas City Gas Company
... ... Gas Co., 52 Mich. 499; Gas Co. v. Lowe, 52 ... W.Va. 662; Hangen v. Light Co., 21 Ore. 423; ... People v. Railroad, 104 N.Y. 58; Vincent v ... Railroad, 49 Ill. 33; Loan & T. Co. v. Hemina, ... 17 Am. L. R. 266; Miller v. Gas Co., 206 Pa. St ... 254; Commonwealth v. Gas Co., ... ...
-
Hocking Valley R. Co. v. New York Coal Co.
...132, 29 Sup.Ct. 246, 53 L.Ed. 441; Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Mich. R.R. Commission, 231 U.S. 457, 34 Sup.Ct. 152, 58 l.Ed. 310; Vincent v. C. & A.R.R. Co., 49 Ill. 33; People v. C. & N.W. Ry. Co., 57 Ill. It is difficult to find basis for a greater obligation on the part of a railroad company ......