Pacific Express Co. v. Cornell
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Lancaster county. Heard below-before Cobnish, J. Tlie opinion contains a statement of the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Lancaster county. Heard below-before Cobnish, J. Tlie opinion contains a statement of the case. The act of 1887 (Session Laws, ch. 60), creating the' board of transportation and defining its powers, is in conflict with section 26 of article 5 of the constitution, prohibiting the legislature from creating any other executive state office than those defined in the constitution, and is in conflict with section 2 of article 5, which provides that none of the officers of the executive department shall be eligible to any other state office. See State v. Liedtlce, 9…
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, C. J.
In this action, commenced in the district court of Lancaster county, the company alleged its corporate organization and existence under the laws of the state, and that the defendants were acting and asserting the right to do certain things as the state board of transportation and its secretaries; that a complaint against the plaintiff company had been filed with the defendants, in which it *368was charged it had been demanding and receiving unjust and exorbitant rates and sums for its services as a common carrier; that plaintiff had been notified to appear before the defendants, and answer said…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. Baughn v. UreNebraska Supreme Court · 1912
- State v. PorterNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- State ex rel. Crosby v. MoorheadNebraska Supreme Court · 1916
- Iams v. MellorNebraska Supreme Court · 1913
- Nebraska Telephone Co. v. CornellNebraska Supreme Court · 1900