Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co. v. Chicago &c. R. Co.
127 U.S. 200 (1888)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co. v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 127 U.S. 200 (1888)

Peoria and Pekin Union Railway Company v. Chicago,

Pekin and Southwestern Railroad Company

No. 210

Argued April 8, 1888

Decided April 23, 1888

127 U.S. 200

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Syllabus

A railroad company, all whose stock was owned by four other companies, whose roads connected, having obtained a lease of another connecting railroad, and improved the terminal facilities, made a contract with the four companies, by which they should have the use of its tracks and terminal facilities for fifty years, each paying the same fixed rent and certain terminal charges, and any other company with the same terminus might, by entering into a similar contract, acquire like privileges upon paying the same rent and similar charges, and demanded the making of such a contract by the receiver of another company, who previously had the use of the road now leased, and of its terminal facilities, upon terms

Page 127 U. S. 201

agreed on between him and the company owning that road. The receiver objected that the terms demanded were exorbitant and oppressive and could not be assented to by him without an order of the court which appointed him, and it was thereupon agreed that his company should enjoy like privileges, paying the like terminal charges as the four companies, and such rent as the judge should award, and meantime should pay at the same rate as before. The judge declining to act as an arbitrator, the receiver was excluded from the use of the tracks. Held that he had not assented, and was not liable, to pay the same rent as the four companies, during the time that he used the tracks and terminal facilities of the first company.

This was a petition by an intervenor in a suit to foreclose a railway mortgage in order to compel the receiver of the mortgaged property to pay rent. Decree dismissing the petition, from which the petitioner appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.