Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY v. STATE MINNESOTA EX REL. RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION

February 23, 1904

MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA EX REL. THE RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION



ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Brown, White, Peckham, McKenna, Holmes, Day

Author: Mckenna

[ 193 U.S. Page 59]

 MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding in mandamus to compel plaintiff in error to build and maintain a station house on the line of its road at the village of Emmons, in compliance with an order of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Minnesota.

The order of the commission was made upon petition and upon hearing after due notice to plaintiff in error. The writ was granted by District Court of Freeborn County, where the proceedings were commenced.

The railroad company in its answer attacks the statute under which the commission acted as follows:

"This respondent says further, that chapter 270, General Laws, 1901, approved April 13, 1901, which was enacted by the legislature of said State at its thirty-second session, which arbitrarily requires railroad carriers to provide freight and passenger rooms and depots at all villages and boroughs upon their respective roads, without regard to the necessity therefore and without regard to the location or situation of such village or boroughs, or to existing conditions, is unjust, unreasonable, contrary to public policy and void.

"It denies to the respondent the right to reasonably manage or control its own business; it takes its property without its consent.

"It takes the property of this respondent arbitrarily and unnecessarily,

[ 193 U.S. Page 60]

     for public use, without just compensation, and is, therefore, violative of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"It deprives the respondent of its property without due process of law, and denies it the equal protection of the laws, and thus violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the judgment of the District Court, the members of the court equally dividing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.