CHICAGO, M. & ST.P. RY. CO. V. MINNEAPOLIS CIVIC ASSN., 247 U. S. 490 (1918)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 247 U. S. 490
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/247/490/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/247/490/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Chicago, M. & St.P. Ry. Co. v. Minneapolis Civic Assn., 247 U.S. 490 (1918)
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
v. Minneapolis Civic & Commerce Association
No. 283
Argued May 1, 2, 1918
Decided June 10, 1918
247 U.S. 490
Syllabus
Two railroad companies, between them owning all the stock and controlling completely the property and operations of a third company, which had legal title to terminal tracks, caused separate switching charges to be made in its name on traffic moved by them over those tracks, although for substantially the same service over terminal which each owned separately, neither made any charge in addition to its line-haul rates. A state commission, finding that the practice discriminated against shippers on the third company's tracks, ordered that the separate charges be discontinued and that the tracks be operated as a part of the terminal properties of the other companies in intrastate traffic. Held: (1) upon examination of the findings and evidence, that the commission and the courts below were justified in holding the third company a mere agency or instrumentality of the other two; (2) that its technical corporate individuality and its technical ownership of the tracks in question did not entitle it to be treated as an independent carrier, and that the order did not deprive it or the other companies of property without compensation or due process of law; (3) that the order imposed no unlawful burden on interstate commerce.
134 Minn. 169 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.