Hays v. Pennsylvania Co.
United States Circuit Court
The plaintiffs were engaged in mining coal at Salineville, near defendant’s road, for sale in the Cleveland market. They were wholly dependent on the defendant for transportation. Their complaint is that the defendant discriminated against them, and in favor of their competitors in business, in the rates charged for carrying coal from Salineville to Cleveland. The defendant traversed this allegation.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs were engaged in mining coal at Salineville, near defendant’s road, for sale in the Cleveland market. They were wholly dependent on the defendant for transportation. Their complaint is that the defendant discriminated against them, and in favor of their competitors in business, in the rates charged for carrying coal from Salineville to Cleveland. The defendant traversed this allegation. The issue thus made was tried at the last term, when it appeared in evidence that the defendant’s regular price for carrying coal between the points mentioned in 1876 was $1'.60 per ton, with a…
1Opinion of the CourtBaxter, J.
The defendant is a common carrier by rail. Its road, though owned by a corporation, was nevertheless constructed for public uses, and is, in a qualified sense, a public highway.. Hence everybody constituting a part of the public, for whose benefit it was authorized, is entitled to an equal and impartial participation in the use of the facilities it is capable of affording. Its ownership by the corporation is in trust as well for the public as for the shareholders; but its first and primary obligation is to the public. We need not recount all these obligations.' It is enough for present…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Boerth v. Detroit City Gas Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
- United Gas Corp. v. Shepherd Laundries Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1945
- Sullivan v. Minneapolis & Rainy River Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Bedford-Bowling Green Stone Co. v. OmanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.