Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District pf Minnesota. The alleged error in this case is that the court below sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint, and the material facts alleged therein were these: The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in buying and selling fruit, vegetables, farm and dairy products, and in a general commission business in these commodities at the city of Minneapolis, in the state of Minnesota, and it has branch…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District pf Minnesota. The alleged error in this case is that the court below sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint, and the material facts alleged therein were these: The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in buying and selling fruit, vegetables, farm and dairy products, and in a general commission business in these commodities at the city of Minneapolis, in the state of Minnesota, and it has branch offices at St. Paul, Rochester, and Mankato in that state, and at Aberdeen in South Dakota. The defendant is a railroad…
1Opinion of the CourtSanborn, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Section 3 of the act of February 4, 1887, commonly called the “Interstate Commerce Act,” provides:
“That it shall he unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular description of traffic in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad v. Denver & New Orleans RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Younts v. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1911
- Swift & Co. v. WallaceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
- Eagle Pass Lumber Co. v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Midstate Horticultural Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.