Seawell v. Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Memphis Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Slovek, Judge. (1) The transportation of plaintiff’s eoal was interstate commerce. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557; Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485; .Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541; Pacific Steamship Co. v. Commissioners, 18 Eed. Rep. 10; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 40 Minn. 267; s. o., 41 N. W. Rep. 1047; 24 XL S. Stats, at Large, 379; Cotton Exchange v. Railroad, 2 Int. St. Com. Rep. 289; Mattingly v. Penn.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Slovek, Judge. (1) The transportation of plaintiff’s eoal was interstate commerce. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557; Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485; .Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541; Pacific Steamship Co. v. Commissioners, 18 Eed. Rep. 10; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 40 Minn. 267; s. o., 41 N. W. Rep. 1047; 24 XL S. Stats, at Large, 379; Cotton Exchange v. Railroad, 2 Int. St. Com. Rep. 289; Mattingly v. Penn. Co., Id. 806. (2) And therefore not subject to regulation by state laws. Railroad v. Illinois, 118 U. S; 557; Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania,…
1Opinion of the CourtBbace, J.
By article 2, chapter 42 of the Bevised Statutes of 1889, it is declared to be unlawful for any common carrier “to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company or firm, corporation or locality in the transportation of goods, wares and merchandise of any character, or to subject any particular person, firm, corporation or locality * * * to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage with respect to such transportation” (sec. 2636), and “for any such common carrier to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- The Daniel BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Welton v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Gloucester Ferry Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Peterson v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- Murphy v. Great American InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926
- Maguire v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Claxton v. PoolMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Nichols v. HendrixMissouri Court of Appeals · 1958
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.