ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY; MEMPHIS & LITTLE ROCK RAILROAD COMPANY V. SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY; MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY V. DINSMORE, PRESIDENT & SHAREHOLDER IN ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court amended its prior decrees in these consolidated cases involving railway and express companies by adding instructions that the lower court proceedings be reversed without prejudice to the ongoing adjustment of accounts for services rendered while an injunction was in force, directing the court to determine just compensation to the defendant based on the value of services performed during the litigation rather than applying any fixed compensation standard. The Court authorized the master in chancery to consider all relevant evidence, both previously submitted and new, to establish appropriate compensation and enter a final decree consistent with the Court's opinion.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite announced as follows :
In pursuance of a stipulation of counsel for the respective parties filed in these cases, it is ordered by the'court that the decrees entered by this court in these -cases be, and' they are hereby, amended by adding thereto the'folio wing:
It is further ordered that said reversal shall be without prejudice to the proceeding already had in adjusting the accounts between the parties of the business done while the injunction . therein granted by that court was in force, but not to fix any particular standard of compensation in respect of the transactions in question; and proceed with the adjusting of such accounts and to make proper orders for the speedy adjusting of the same, to the end that just compensation may be made to the defendant below on dismissing said bill for services performed pending the suit ; and to that end the master heretofore appointed therein, or such other master as the court may appoint in his place, may consider all the proofs relevant thereto heretofore taken in the cause, whether before or since a final hearing, and such other proofs as may be adduced relating to the extent and value of the service rendered by the defendant below for the complainant, and the payments made on account thereof, and relating to such other matters, necessary to be inquired into, in order to adjust said accounts between the various parties, to the end that a proper final decree may be entered in accordance with the opinion of this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wells, 96 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1928)…n of business between its patrons and itself as a common carrier are inadequate or discriminatory. The principles here involved are related to those considered by the Supreme Court of the United States in the so-called “Express Cases,” 117 U. S. 1; 29 L. Ed. 791, the decision in which was, in effect, that the right of an express company to transportation by a railroad common carrier rested upon contract, and that so long as the public was afforded reasonable express facilities the service might be extended…
-
The State of Fla. at the Relation of R. Hudson Burr v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 59 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1910)…Commonwealth, 103 Va. 289, 49 S. E. Rep. 39. In other words, whenever a duty has been imposed either by usage or by statute the courts may be called on to give it effect. Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. Southern Exp. Co., 117 U. S. 1, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 542, 29 L. Ed. 791. If this may be said to be a drayage service it is not a private drayage service, as suggested by respondent, but a public drayage business. Where does the company get authority to do a private drayage business ? As the court said, in Munn v. Ill.,…
-
Grace Line, Inc. v. Fed. Mar. Bd., 280 F.2d 790 (2d Cir. 1960)…as to those goods and may carry by “special contract” any other kinds of goods it pleases. At common law there was no doubt, that a “common carrier” may on occasion carry by contract. For example, in the Express Cases, 117 U.S. 1, 6 S.Ct. 542, 628, 29 L.Ed. 791, on which the Grace Line especially relies, the railroads were allowed to choose their own express companies for the carriage of goods sent by express. Again, in United States v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 6 Cir., 221 F. 2d 698, a railroad…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence