Stahl, M. R.

English

Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship

Washington University Law Review Volume 2 Issue 1 January 1917 Right of a Railway Company to Grant Exclusive Privileges to Hackmen and Expressmen M. R. Stahl Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation M. R. Stahl, Right of a Railway Company to Grant Exclusive Privileges to Hackmen and Expressmen, 2 ST. LOUIS L. REV. 042 (1917). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol2/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu. RIGHT OF A RAILWAY COMPANY TO GRANTEXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES TO HACKMENAND EXPRESSMEN.PRIVILEGES TO HACKMEN AND EXPRESSMEN.In the recent case of Skaggs v. Kansas City Terminal RailwayCo. et al.,' the court held that "a railroad and depot company maylawfully exclude some hackmen or carriers of baggage from enter-ing its grounds or station for the purpose of soliciting patronage andplying their vocation, while it gives to others the exclusive privilegeof doing so." The defendant Terminal Company granted to a certaintransfer company the exclusive privilege of soliciting patronage forits cabs, carriages and baggage service upon the grounds and premisesof the Terminal Company at the new Union Station in Kansas City.The plaintiffs obtained in the circuit court of Jackson County atemporary order restraining the defendants from depriving them ofthe use of the station grounds. On an amended petition chargingthe defendants with an agreement in restraint of trade and for thecreation of a monopoly affecting commerce the case was removed tothe federal court. The court held that the federal rule as stated inDonovan v. Pennsylvania Co., controlled.2 This case and a concurringline of state decisions3 proceed upon the theory that the carrier owesa duty only to passengers and shippers to furnish them with reason-able facilities for transporting themselves and their baggage' andnot to the competing hack-drivers to give them all an equal oppor-tunity to solicit patronage. As between the carrier and the generalpublic the station and premises of the carrier are private propertyand the carrier is not bound to allow others to carry on a business forprofits on its grounds. Another line of decisions deny the right of arailroad to grant exclusive privileges to hackmen or baggage express-men.5 These decisions are based on the ground that such contractsprevent competition and tend to create a monopoly and are againstpublic policy.1236 Fed. Rep. 827.2199 U. S. 279.3 See Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Davidson, 33 Utah 370; note 16 L. R. A.(n. s.) 77 and cases cited.4 In Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., the court cites with approval the ExpressCases, 117 U. S. 1, saying, "So long as the public is served to its satisfaction itis a matter of no importance who serves it." See also Chicago & 1. P. Co. v.Pullman Car Co., 139 U. S. 79.5 State v. Reed, 76 Mass. 211.Washington University Open ScholarshipNOTES.It is universally conceded that a railroad may exclude all per-sows who come upon its premises to solicit patronage.8 It is alsoconceded by those cases which countenance such exclusive contractsthat a railroad cannot prohibit the entrance upon its grounds of hack-men or expressmen who have already contracted to deliver at, orcarry from a depot the person or baggage of a passenger with reason-able means for the transportation of his person and baggage, i. e.,they must be allowed to enter the grounds under such circumstancesby virtue of a duty owed to the passenger.7In Skaggs v. Terminal Railroad Co., after deciding that the fed-eral rule controlled, the court declared that even though it were con-ceded that the local law governed, nevertheless the decisions in Mis-.ouri do not sustain the plaintiff's contention that such a contract isvoid. This contention does not seem well founded. In Cravens v.Rogers8 the plaintiff built an approach to the depot platform of arailroad under an agreement that he was to have the exclusive use ofit. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant from using this plat-form. The court held that "the agreement to give the exclusive privi-lege is against public policy and the spirit of the state constitution,Art. 12, Sec. 23."'9 It is to be noted that the Supreme Court did notattempt to construe this section of the constitution nor did it declarethe contract to be contrary to its terms; it only held the contract to beagainst the spirit of the constitution. The court in the present casecontends that this section of the constitution and sections 3174 and3184 R. S. Mo., 19)9, "apply only to those doing business with car-riers in connection with railroad transportation; that is to say, patronsor would-be patrons who sustain a contractual relation with them."This view does not seem to have been adopted by the courts, as inTielo v. Stone' 0 the court quotes Cravens v. Rogers and adds, "thesection in the constitution referred to in the above opinion (Cravens v.Rogers) covers transactions between carriers," and in Telephone Co.v. Telephone Co." the decision in Cravens v. Rogers was put uponthe ground that it was a discrimination by one common carrier againstanother, considering the competing bus lines as common carriers.6Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. v. Davidson, supra; Hedding v. Gallagher,72 N. . 377.7 Old Colony R. R. v. Tupp, 147 Mass. 35.3 101 Mo. 247.9 No discrimination in charges or facilities in transportation shall be madebetween transportation companies and individuals or in favor of either by abate-ment, draw back, or otherwise.10 135 Mo. App. 438, 459.11 147 Mo. App. 216, 237.https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol2/iss1/5ST. LOUIS LAW REVIEW.If we yield to the contention that Cravens v. Rogers does notcome within the terms of the constitution provision, then it mustbe placed on that part of the decision which declares the contractcontrary to public policy, and unless Cravens v. Rogers has been sub-sequently overruled, impliedly or in terms, it must be taken as the lawupon the subject.The court in Skaggs v. Terminal Railroad Co. mentions twocases which, in its opinion, involve the question in doubt. In WigginsFerry Co. v. Railroad' 2 the defendant required a ferry to completethe transportation of its passengers and freight at a terminal pointand it agreed with the plaintiff to give it all its ferrying business atthat point in consideration of the granting to the railroad of a sitefor a depot. The railroad pleaded that the contract was againstpublic policy to escape liability for its breach, but it was declared validand not in restraint of trade or against public policy. This case isdistinguishable, however, from Cravens v. Rogers. Here no one wascomplaining of a discrimination; the public in this situation is notinterested in the means whereby they shall cross the Mississippi,whether by one ferry or another, so long as it is expeditious; whereasthey are directly and personally interested in transportation servicefor their person and baggage at the point of destination. In thesecond argument of this case, which was subsequent to Cravens v.Rogers, it is significant that the latter was not cited by counsel or inthe opinion. In Home Telephone Co. v. Sarcoxie Telephone Co., theplaintiff sued to enjoin the defendant from violating a contract pro-viding that the parties should connect their lines so as to make acontinuous system and that all messages received by either companyon the lines of the other should be transmitted over the line of theother company exclusively. The court, taking judicial notice of thehistory of telephone organization in Missouri, declared the contractvalid since the parties were not competing lines and the defendantsought to escape its contract only to join in an alliance with the BellSystem, a rival of the plaintiff. All the other cases in Missouri uponthis question are between carriers and shippers or localities.As Cravens v. Rogers seems not to fiave been overruled, Missourimust be classed with those states which hold that a railroad cannotgrant exclusive privileges to hackmen or expressmen.M. R. STAHL, '18.1 73 Mo. 389; 128 Mo. 224.Is 236 Mo. 114 overruling 147 Mo. App. 216.Washington University Open Scholarship

Right of a Railway Company to Grant Exclusive Privileges to Hackmen and Expressmen

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5585&amp;context=law_lawreview

Right of a Railway Company to Grant Exclusive Privileges to Hackmen and Expressmen

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship