State ex rel. Rolston v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Schuyler Circuit Court. — Ron. Npt M. Shelton, Judge. • This Act -does not deny to the defendant the equal protection of the laws. Eailroad v. Humes, 115 U. S. 523, 29-L. Ed. 463; Barbier v. Connelly, 113 U. S. 27, 28 L. Ed. 923; Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, 28 L Ed. 1145.'
1Opinion of the Court
BLAIR, C.
This is a proceeding under Sees. 3223-3225, R. S. 1909, to recover from the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Eailroad Company accumulated penalties for abandoning a depot and station at Guinn, Missouri, without being authorized by the Board of Eailroad and Warehouse Commissioners so to do.
The trial court gave judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed. In the answer it is averred that ■the statute under which the action was instituted denies defendant the equal protection of the laws, de*513prives it of its property without due process of law and impairs the obligation of its contract…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Billings v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Powell v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- People Ex Rel. Loughran v. Board of Railroad CommissionersNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
3Cited by14 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Transport Manufacturing & Equipment Co. v. BatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1961
- Star Square Auto Supply Co. v. GerkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- In Re FrenchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1926
- Hull v. BaumannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.