State v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
This is an application for an injunction to restrain tbe defendants from using palace, drawing-room, or sleeping cars within this state, on the ground that the defendant Pullman’s Palace Oa/¡' Company has not made the reports and refuses to pay the license fee required by ch. 353, Laws of 1883. The Chicago, Mil/waukm <& St. Paul Paihoay Company is made a defendant for the reason that it hauls the cars of the principal defendant upon its lines in this state.
Read the full summary
This is an application for an injunction to restrain tbe defendants from using palace, drawing-room, or sleeping cars within this state, on the ground that the defendant Pullman’s Palace Oa/¡' Company has not made the reports and refuses to pay the license fee required by ch. 353, Laws of 1883. The Chicago, Mil/waukm <& St. Paul Paihoay Company is made a defendant for the reason that it hauls the cars of the principal defendant upon its lines in this state. The application is based upon the complaint or information, the answer of the principal defendant thereto, the demurrer of the state to…
1Opinion of the Court
The following opinions were filed June 1, 1885:
Tayloe, J.
This action was commenced by the state in this court against the defendants for the violation of ch. 353, Laws of 1883, by an alleged refusal on the part of the Palace Gar Oompany, to pay two per cent, of the gross earnings of said company into the treasury of the state, as *96required by said chapter, in order to entitle said company to run its cars within this state, and its refusal to njake a proper return of its earnings as required by said law, and this court is asked to enjoin said companies from running palace, drawing-room, or…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Doe v. ConsidineSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- United States v. HodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Taylor v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- Cliquot's ChampagneSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Lamb v. CunninghamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Hunter v. Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908