St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Gill
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. On the 16th day of August, 1880, under the general laws of the State of Arkansas, a company was incorporated under the name and style of the St. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway Company, and authorized to construct a railway from the northern boundary of the State of Arkansas to Fayetteville, in that State.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. On the 16th day of August, 1880, under the general laws of the State of Arkansas, a company was incorporated under the name and style of the St. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway Company, and authorized to construct a railway from the northern boundary of the State of Arkansas to Fayetteville, in that State. This railroad was connected at its northern terminus with the railroad of the St. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway Company, a corporation of the State of Missouri, and at its southern terminus with the railroad of the Missouri,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Shiras
By the act of April 4, 1887, the legislature of Arkansas' prescribed a maximum rate of three cents per mile for each passenger carried by the railroads of that State, and a penalty of three hundred dollars for each overcharge, payable to the passenger from whom §uch overcharge had been exacted.
It was found by the trial court, a jury having been waived, that John B. Gill, the plaintiff, had, on several occasions, while, travelling ism the railroad of the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company, between points within the territory of the State of Arkansas, been charged a rate in excess of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. WellmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Dow v. BeidelmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by143 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Smyth v. Ames; Smyth v. Smith; Smyth v. HigginsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
138 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.