Winona & St. Peter Railroad v. Blake
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ruggles v. Illinois (Supreme Court of the United States 1883)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. (Kan. 1907)
- Perkins v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota 1907)
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los Angeles (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California 1907)
- Bullard v. Northern Pacific Railroad (Mont. 1890)
- Lucking v. Detroit & C. Navigation Co. (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1921)
- The Minnesota Rate Cases (Supreme Court of the United States 1913)
- Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corporation Comm'n (Supreme Court of the United States 1907)
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Commonwealth (Ky. Ct. App. 1896)
- Atlantic & P. R. v. United States (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1896)
- Attorney General v. Old Colony Railroad (Mass. 1893)
- Spring Valley Water Works v. City & County of San Francisco (Cal. 1890)
- Pensacola & Atlantic Railroad v. State (Fla. 1889)
- Dow v. Beidelman (Supreme Court of the United States 1888)
- Hockett v. State (Ind. 1886)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
*181 For the reasons stated in the opinions in those cases, th8 judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is
Affirmed.
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 Me. Justice Strong dissented.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.