Skip to main content
· 2/21/1910

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Kansas Ex Rel. Railroad Commissioners

Citations

  • 216 U.S. 262
  • 30 S. Ct. 330
  • 54 L. Ed. 472
  • 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1890

Syllabus

<p>The fact that a railroad company is chartered by another State and has projected its lines through several States does not make all of its business interstate commerce-and render unconstitutional, as an interference with, and burden upon interstate commerce, reasonable regulations of a State Railroad Commission applicable to a portion of the lines wholly within, and which are valid under, the laws of that State.</p> <p>Qumre -whether on writ of error where the constitutional question is whether a rate or duty prescribed by a state commission amounts to deprivation, of property without due process of law, this court is ■ bound by a finding of the state court that a rate or duty is not actually confiscatory.</p> <p>There is a difference between the exertion of the legislative power to establish rates in such a manner as to confiscate the property of a public service corporation by fixing them below a remunerative standard and one compelling the corporation to render a service which it is essentially its duty to perform; and an order directing a railroad company to run a regular passenger train over its line, instead of a mixed passenger and freight train, is not, even if such train is run at a loss, a deprivation of property without due process of law, or a taking of private property for public use without compensation; nor is such an order an unreasonable exercise of governmental control. Such an order if made by the railroad commission of a State is not an interference with, or burden upon, interstate commerce if it relates to a portion of the line wholly within that State.</p> <p>A state statute making provisions for passengers riding on the caboose of freight trains will not be construed as a declaration of the State that there is no distinction between passenger train service and ' mixed train service, especially where, as in Kansas, the liability of - the railroad is limited as to persons riding in cabooses.</p> <p>An order cannot be said to be such an unreas

How courts have described this case

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

  • considering the constitutionality of art. 3, ch. 84 of G.S. 1901 creating the Railroad Commissionโ€”now the KCC
  • considering the constitutionality-of art. 3, ch. 84 of G.S. 1901 creating the Railroad Commission — now the KCC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White

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.