W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota

180 U.S. 452, 21 S. Ct. 423, 45 L. Ed. 619, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1318
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 5, 1901
Docket116
StatusPublished
Cited by112 cases

This text of 180 U.S. 452 (W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U.S. 452, 21 S. Ct. 423, 45 L. Ed. 619, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1318 (1901).

Opinion

Me. Justice Haelan

delivered the opinion of the court.

The present'action was brought in one of the courts of Minnesota, in the name óf the State, against the W. W. Cargill Company, a Wisconsin corporation. The relief sought was a decree *454 perpetually enjoining the defendant from operating a certain elevator and warehouse owned by it, situated on the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, in the village of Lanesboro, Minnesota, until it should have obtained a license from the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of that State.

The suit is based on a statute of Minnesota, approved Aptil 16, 1895, and entitled “An act to regulate the receipt,.storage and shipment of grain at elevators and warehouses on the right of way of railroads, depot ground's and other lands used, in connection with such line of railway in the State of Minnesota, at stations and sidings, other than at terminal points.” Gen. Stats. Minn. 1895, c. 148, p. 313.

It seems to be necessary to a clear understanding of the case and to the disposition of some.of the questions presented for consideration that the entire act be examined. It is therefore given in full in the margin. 1

*455 We here give only tbe first and second sections of tbe act:

“ § 1. All elevators and warehouses in which grain is received, *456 stored, shipped or handled, and which are situated on the right of way of any railroad, depot grounds or any lands acquired *457 or reserved by any railroad company in this State to be used in connection with its line of railway at any station or siding. *458 in this State, other than at terminal points, are hereby declared to be public elevators, and shall' be under the supervision and *459 subject to the inspection of the Eailroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Minnesota, and shall, for the purposes of this act, be known and designated as public country elevators or country warehouses. It shall be unlawful to receive, ship, store or handle any grain in any such elevator or warehouse, *460 unless the owner or owners thereof shall have'procured a license therefor from the state Railroad and Warehouse Commission, which license shall be issued for the fee of one dollar per year, and only upon written application under oath, specifying the location of such elevator or warehouse and the name of the person, firm or corporation owning and operating such elevator or warehouse and the names of all the members of the firm or the names of all the officers of the corporation owning and operating such elevator or warehouse, and all moneys received for such licenses shall be turned over to the state grain inspection fund. Such license shall confer upon the licensee full authority to operate such warehouse or elevator in accordance with the laws of this State and the rules and regulations prescribed by said Commission, and every person, company or corporation receiving such license shall be held to have accepted the provisions of this act, and thereby to have agreed to comply with the same. If any elevator or warehouse is operated in violation or in disregard of the laws of this State its license shall, upon due proof of this fact, after proper hearing and notice to the licensee, be revoked by the said Railroad and Warehouse Commission. Every such license shall expire on the thirty-first day' of August of each year.
“ § 2. No person, firm or corporation shall in any manner operate such public country elevator or country warehouse without having a license as specified in the preceding section, and any attempt to operate such elevator or warehouse without such license shall be deemed a misdemeanor to be punished as hereinafter provided, and any attempt to operate such elevator or warehouse in violation of law and without having the license herein .prescribed, may upon complaint of the party aggrieved, and upon complaint of.' the Railroad and Warehouse Commis'sibn, be enjoined and restrained by the district court for the county in which the elevator or warehouse in question is situate, .by temporary and permanent injunction, conformably to the procedure in civil actions in the district court.”

The complaint alleged that the elevator was used by the defendant companyin connection with the railway for the receiving and shipping of wheat and other grains transported over *461 the lines of the railway company; was essential and necessary to the railway company in order promptly, safely and properly to handle grains received by it for shipment; and constituted, in that respect, a necessary adjunct of the railroad.

The facts upon which the case was determined are set forth in a finding based upon the stipulation of the parties and may be summarized as follows:

On April 16, 1895, and for more than a year prior thereto, the defendant company was engaged in the business of buying, selling and dealing in grain — its principal office and place of business being in the city of La Crosse, Wisconsin. It owned and operated large terminal and other grain elevators in that city, in Green Bay, and in other places in Wisconsin.

The village of Lanesboro contained about eleven hundred inhabitants, and was situated in the county of Fillmore, Minnesota, upon the railway line of the Southern Minnesota division of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Bailway Company, distant about fifty-four miles west from La Crosse, and having by the railway line referred to direct connection with that city.

Considerable quantities of grain had been annually raised in Fillmore County, and marketed, sold and delivered into local grain elevators and warehouses in Lanesboro and thence shipped in cars over the above-mentioned line of railway, which was the only means for such shipment.

The defendant company owned, occupied and operated a grain warehouse situated on the right of way of the railway company and along its tracks in Lanesboro.

No machinery or mechanical appliances whatever had been used or were contained in its warehouse at Lanesboro; and all grain of every kind received into it during the period in question had been hauled to the warehouse in bags or farm wagons and there unloaded. The bags of grain were placed upon small hand trucks at the entrance of the building and conveyed first to the weighing scale and thence to the grain bins of the warehouse into which the grain was poured from the bags.

The grain shipped from the warehouse was “ spouted ” by force of gravity into box cars standing on the railway tracks *462 and thence carried by the railroad company over its line for the defendant company to such points as the latter might direct.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary
698 S.E.2d 404 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Pisco v. Police Commissioner of Boston
120 N.E.2d 643 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1954)
Proffett v. Valley View Village, Inc.
123 F. Supp. 339 (N.D. Ohio, 1953)
Schwegmann Bros. v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control
43 So. 2d 248 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1949)
Department of Financial Institutions v. General Finance Corp.
86 N.E.2d 444 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1949)
Independent Warehouses, Inc. v. Scheele
45 A.2d 703 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1946)
Roig v. People of Puerto Rico
147 F.2d 87 (First Circuit, 1945)
Lash v. State
14 So. 2d 235 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1943)
Lash v. State
14 So. 2d 229 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1943)
Brown v. Parker
39 F. Supp. 895 (S.D. California, 1941)
United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co.
311 U.S. 377 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Bacardi Corp. of America v. Domenech
311 U.S. 150 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1940 OK 437 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1940)
Hurt v. Cooper
113 S.W.2d 929 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Reynolds Metal Co. v. Martin
107 S.W.2d 251 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1937)
Townsend v. Yeomans
301 U.S. 441 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Grosjean
301 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Stith Petroleum Co. v. Department of Audit & Control
5 N.E.2d 517 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1937)
Commonwealth v. Whiting Oil Co.
187 S.E. 498 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 U.S. 452, 21 S. Ct. 423, 45 L. Ed. 619, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-w-cargill-co-v-minnesota-scotus-1901.