City of St. Louis v. Public Service Commission
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court. — Ron. J. G. Slate-, Judge. (1) Rate making is the province of the State in the exercise of its police power. The express language of the Constitution, is that this power “shall never be abridged.” Art. 12, sec. 5. Even if not expressly reserved, this power, so essential to the public welfare,, would be construed as impliedly reserved. It is the governing power for the welfare of the State.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court. — Ron. J. G. Slate-, Judge. (1) Rate making is the province of the State in the exercise of its police power. The express language of the Constitution, is that this power “shall never be abridged.” Art. 12, sec. 5. Even if not expressly reserved, this power, so essential to the public welfare,, would be construed as impliedly reserved. It is the governing power for the welfare of the State. The ordinance relied upon by the city, whether it be a contract or regulation, must give way when it conflicts with legislation of the State in the exercise of its police…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodson, J.
At all the times hereinafter mentioned, the United Eaiiways Company of St. Louis was operating its system of street railways in that city under and by authority of Ordinance No. 19,352, approved April 12, 1898. Said ordinance after authorizing the construction and operation of street railways upon and over certain streets of the city, provided that:
“A fare of five cents shall be charged for passengers of twelve years of age and over, and one-half of said fare for -persons under twelve and over five years of age. Children’s tickets shall be sold by conductors on the car at the rate of two…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Ewing v. HoblitzelleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Matter of Quinby v. . Public Service Comm.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Kittinger v. . Buffalo Traction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1899
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- State Upon the Information of Shartel v. Missouri Utilities Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Furstenberg v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1937
- State Public Utilities Commission ex rel. Quincy Railway Co. v. City of QuincyIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
- Anderson v. Inter-River Drainage & Levee DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- State Ex Rel. City of Sikeston v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.