WINONA AND ST. PETER RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
BLAKE
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 Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company challenged Minnesota's authority to regulate the rates charged by railroads as common carriers under state law. The Supreme Court affirmed that states have the power to regulate railroad rates, holding that a railroad's charter as a common carrier implicitly subjects it to state regulation of reasonable charges, and that subsequent state constitutional and statutory provisions reinforcing this obligation added nothing new to the original grant of incorporation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
By its charter, the Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company was incorporated as a common carrier, with all the rights and subject to all the obligations that name implies. It was, therefore, bound to carry, when called upon for that purpose, and charge only a reasonable compensation for the carriage. These are incidents of the occupation in which it was authorized to engage. There is nothing in the charter limiting the power of the State to regulate the rates of charge. The provision in the act of Feb. 28, 1866, that the “ company shall be bound to carry freight and passengers upon reasonable terms,” and that in the Constitution of Minnesota (art. 10, sect. 4), that “ all corporations being common carriers, . . . shall be bound to carry the mineral, agricultural, and other productions or manufactures on equal and reasonable terms,” add nothing to and taire nothing from the grant as-contained in the original charter. This case, therefore, falls directly within our rulings in Munn v. Illinois; Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad Company v. Iowa; Peik v. Chicago & North-western Railway Company; and Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railroad Company v. Ackley, supra. For the reasons stated in the opinions in those cases, th8 judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Strong dissented.-
Note. — In Southern Minnesota Railroad Company v. Coleman, eririái to the -Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, which was Argued, by Mr. H. J. Horn and Mr. G. E. Cole for the plaintiff in error, anti by-Mr. É. C. Palmer for the defendant in error, Mr. Chief Justice Waite, in delivering the opinion of the court, remarked: This case, in all its essential facts, is precisely like that of Winona §• St. Peter Railroad Company v. Blake, supra. The judgment of the Circuit Court is, therefore, affirmed upon the authority of that case, and'' for the reasons stated in the opinions which have just been read.
Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Strong dissented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Pensacola & Atl. R.R. Co. v. State, 25 Fla. 310 (Fla. 1889)
-
The Minn. Rate Cases. Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1913)…charges unless they were protected by their contract with the State. This was decided in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155; Peik v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 94 U. S. 164; Winona & St. Peter R. R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, and other cases, following Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113. The question was presented by acts of the legislatures of Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, passed in the years 1871 and 1874 in response to a general movement for a reduction of ra…
-
Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1898)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence