Skip to main content
· 4/17/1899

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Smith

Citations

  • 173 U.S. 684
  • 19 S. Ct. 565
  • 43 L. Ed. 858
  • 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1472

Syllabus

<p>The provision in the act of the legislature of Michigan, No. 90, of the.year 1891, amending the general railroad law, that one thousand-mile tickets . shall be kept for'sale at the principal ticket' offices of all ráilroad companies in this State or carrying on business partly within and partly without the limits of the State, at a price not exceeding twenty dollars in the Lower<Péninsula and twenty-five dollars-in the Upper. PeninsulaV that such one thousand-mile tickets may be made non-transferable, but whenever required by the purchaser, they shall be issued in the names of the purchaser, his wife and children, designating the name of each on such ticket, and in case such ticket is presented by any other than the person or persons named thereon, the conductor may take it up and collect fare, and thereupon such one thousand-mile ticket shall be forfeited to tjie railroad-company; that each one thousand-mile ticket shall be valid for two years only after date of purchase, and in case it is not wholly used within the time, the company issuing the same shall, redeem the unused portion thereof, if presented by the purchaser .for redemption within thirty days after the expiration of such time, and shall on such redemption be entitled to charge three cents per mile for the portion thereof used, is a vio-latioñ of that part of the Constitution of the United States which forbids the taking of property without due process of law, and requires the equal protection of the laws.</p> <p>In so holding the court is not thereby interfering with the power of the legislature over railroads, as corporations or common carriers, to so legislate as to fix maximum rates, to prevent extortion or undue charges, and to promote the -safety, health, convenience or proper protection of the public; but it only says that the particular legislation in review in this case does not partake of the character of legislation fairly or reasonably necessary to attain any of those objects, and that it

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • which we shall speak of for convenience as the “Michi gan Case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gbay, McKenNA, Peckham

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.