6 S. W. 834; State ex rel. Leese v. Atchison & N. R. Co. 24 Neb. 143, 8 Am. St. Rep. 164, 38 N. W. 43; Currier v. Concord R. Corp. 48 N. H. 321; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Southern P. R Co. 41 La. Ann. 970, 17 Am. St. Rep. 445,

Ft. Worth & D. R. Co. v. Lillard (Tex. App.) 16 S. W. 654; State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 68 Minn. 381, 38 L. R. A. 672, 64 Am. St. Rep. 482, 71 1. W. 400; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628, 632, 41 L. ed. 853, 854, 17 Sup. Ct. | 6 So. 888; Clarke v. Central R. & Bkg. Co. Rep. 418; Railroad Commissioners V. Portland & O. C. R. Co. 63 Me. 269, 18 Am. Rep. 208; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. State, 72 Tex. 404, 1 L. R. A. 849, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 335, 13 Am. St. Rep. 815, 10 S. W. 81; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 560, 21 L. ed. 710; Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. ed. 636, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 334, 388, 1191; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 31 L. ed. 841, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 56, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1028; Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 32 L. ed. 377, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller, 132 U. S. 75, 33 L. ed. 267, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 34; Guthrie, 14th Amendment, p. 87; Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. 71 Minn. 519, 40 L. R. A. 389, 70 Am. St. Rep. 358, 74 N. W. 893; 179 U. S. 287, 45 L. ed. 194, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 67, 42 L. ed. 952, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 513; Rae v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 14 Fed. 401; State v. Gladson, 57 Minn. 385, 24 L. R. A. 502, 59 N. W. 487, Affirmed in 166 U. S. 427, 41 L. ed. 1064, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 627; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 43 L. ed. 702, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; Erb v. Morasch, 177 U. S. 584, 44 L. ed. 897, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 819; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 36 L. ed. 247, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 45, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468; Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391, 38 L. ed. 757, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 670, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 857; Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578, 43 L. ed. 290, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 40; United States v. E. C. Knight Co. 156 U. S. 1, 39 L. ed. 325, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 249; National Distilling Co. v. Cream City Importing Co. 86 Wis. 352, 39 Am. St. Rep. 902, 56 N. W. 864; W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452, 45 L. ed. 619, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423; Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296, 39 L. ed. 430, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 68, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 367; Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 45 L. ed. 186, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 128; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 513, 514, 46 L. ed. 298, 304, 305, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 95, 161 U. S. 677, 678, 702, 703, 40 L. ed. 849, 860, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 714; Gyer v. Philadelphia City Pass. R. Co. 136 Pa. 96, 9 L. R. A. 369, 20 Atl. 399; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com. (Pa.) 4 Cent. Rep. 495, 7 Atl. 368; Boardman v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 84 N. Y. 157; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. State, 72 Tex. 404, 1 L. R. A. 849, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 335, 13 Am. St. Rep. 815, 10 S. W. 81; East Line & R. River R. Co. v. Rushing, 69 Tex. 306,

15 L. R. A. 683, 50 Fed. 338; Hamilton v. Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. 49 Fed. 412; Kimball v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 46 Fed. 888; Langdon v. Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. 2 L. R. A. 120, 37 Fed. 449; Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38, 27 L. ed. 370, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44; Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 23 L. ed. 819; Smith v. Alabama, 121 U. S. 465, 31 L. ed. 508, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. 79 Fed. 679, 82 Fed. 850, Reversed in 183 U. S. 79, 46 L. ed. 92, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30; Scammon v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. 41 Mo. App. 194; Connell v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 108 Mo. 459, 18 S. W. 883; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com. 97 Ky. 675, 31 S. W. 476; Burdick v. People. 149 Ill. G00, 24 L. R. A. 152, 41 Am. St. Rep. 329, 36 N. E. 948, 952; State v. Corbett, 57 Minn. 345, 24 L. R. A. 498, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 694, 59 N. W. 317; State v. Geer, 61 Conn. 144, 13 I. R. A. 804, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 732, 22 Atl. 1012; Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 267, 19 S. W. 840; State v. Harrub, 95 Ala. 176, 15 L. R. A. 761, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 99, 10 So. 752; Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 40 L. ed. 793, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 600; East Line & R. River R. Co. v. State, 75 Tex. 434, 12 S. W. 690; McDuffee v. Portland & R. R. Co. 52 N. H. 430, 13 Am. Rep. 72; Scofield v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 43 Ohio St. 571, 54 Am. Rep. 846, 3 N. E. 907; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 29 L. ed. 257, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1091; Pittsburg & S. Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 577, 39 L. ed. 538, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 30, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 415; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 20, 24, 32 L. ed. 350, 351, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 232, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6; Dubuque & S. C. R. Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584, 22 L. ed. 173; Ouachita & M. River Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S. 444, 30 L. ed. 976, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 379, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 907; United States v. Joint Traffic Asso. 171 U. S. 505. 43 L. ed. 259, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25; Anderson v. United States, 171 U. S. 604, 43 L. ed. 300, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 50; St. Louis v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 148 U. S. 92, 100, 37 L. ed. 380, 384, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485; Pearsall v. Great Northern R. Co. 161 U. S. 647, 40 L. ed. 838, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 705; State ex rel. Kohler v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co. 47 Ohio St. 130, 7 L. R. A. 319, 23 N. E. 928; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 11, 16 Am. Rep. 599.

Notice to the carrier while the car is on the "hold track” is sufficient to compel free delivery by the initial carrier to consignee

at any elevator, etc., designated by him, | ville & N. W. R. Co. v. Bartlett, 7 Hurlst. located on said carrier's tracks, or on any & N. 400; Avery v. Stewart, 2 Conn. 69; track it has leased or uses or which "can be used" by it.

Hoyt v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 93 Ill. 611; Vincent v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 49 III. 33; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. People, 56 Ill. 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Jones, 155 U. S. 333, 39 L. ed. 176, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; Loomis v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. 17 Mo. App. 340; Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. Jones, 149 Ill. 361, 24 L. R. A. 141, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 683, 41 Am. St. Rep. 278, 37 N. E. 247; Chicago, M. & N. R. Co. v. National Elevator & Dock Co. 153 Ill. 70, 38 N. E. 915.

The initial carrier cannot charge more for delivery to one elevator, etc., located on its tracks in a certain town than it charges for delivery to another elevator or industry in the same town located on its tracks.

Vincent v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 49 Ill. 33; Chicago & N. W. K. Co. v. People, 56 Ill. 365, S Am. Rep. 690; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 11, 16 Am. Rep. 599.

The liability of a railroad company ceases only when goods have reached their destination, and are stored in a warehouse belonging to the company, and thereafter, its liability is that of warehouseman, and it is liable as common carrier for the loss of goods by accidental fire when located in a ear at their destination.

Isherwood v. Whitmore, 11 Mees. & W. 347, 10 Mees. & W. 757; Hutchinson, Carr, § 392.

It is immaterial whether the charge by way of reconsignment so-called is fixed at the intrinsic value thereof, or whether it is reasonable or unreasonable; the ultimate question for determination is the legal right of the railroads to make the discrimination here complained of.

Samuels v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 420, 31 Fed. 57.

In a case of this character, where public rights are invaded, no question of the amount of damages is raised, but simply one of right to do the act complained of.

Com. v. Pittsburgh & C. R. Co. 24 Pa. 159, 62 Am. Dec. 372.

Common carriers shall not exercise any unjust and injurious discrimination between individuals in their rates of toll.

Messenger v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 36 N. J. L. 407, 13 Am. Rep. 457; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 11, 16 Am. Rep. 599; Scofield v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 43 Ohio St. 571, 54 Am. Rep. 846, 3 N. E. 907; Central Ohio Salt Co. v. Guthrie, 35 Ohio St. 666; McDuffee v. Portland & R. R. Co. 52 N. H. 430, 13 Am. Rep. 72; Sandford v. Catawissa, W. & E. R. Co. 24 Pa. 378, 64 Am. Dec. 667; New England Exp. Co. v. Porter v. Chicago & R. I. R. Co. 20 Ill. Maine C. R. Co. 57 Me. 188, 2 Am. Rep. 31; 407, 71 Am. Dec. 286. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. People, 56 Ill. Liability does not cease till delivery, and | 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. the carrier must obey the instructions of the shipper as to delivery.

Michigan S. & N. I. R. Co. v. Day, 20 Ill. 375, 71 Am. Dec. 278; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Scott, 42 Ill. 138; Bartholomew v. St. Louis J. & C. R. Co. 53 Ill. 231; 5 Am. Rep. 45; Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Hallock, 64 Ill. 286; Illinois R. Co. v. Friend, 64 Ill. 304; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Sawyer, 69 Ill. 285, 18 Am. Rep. 613; Chicago & N. W. K. Co. v. Jenkins, 103 Ill. 599; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Bensley, 69 Ill. 630; Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. Warren, 16 Ill. 502, 63 Am. Dec. 317.

Independent of the Constitution or statute, the consignee has the right to change the destination at any time while the goods remain in the possession of the carrier, and the carrier is bound to obey such directions.

v. Texas, 72 Tex. 404, 1 L. R. A. 849, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 335, 13 Am. St. Rep. 815, 10 S. W. S1; Denver & N. O. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F'. R. Co. 15 Fed. 650.

A railroad company charged by law with the duty of making delivery to any place or consignee located upon tracks which it owns, leases, uses, or can use cannot avoid and evade it by the organization of a terminal company like the terminal railroad association, in which the railroads themselves upon which the duty of delivery is by law imposed own the entire capital stock, and dominate its business and policy, and divide its earnings.

Central R. Co. v. Collins, 40 Ga. 582; Hartford & N. H. R. Co. v. New York & N. H R. Co. 3 Robt. 411; Rensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137; Union Bridge Co. v. Troy & L. R. Co. 7 Lans. 240; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com. (Pa.) 4 Cent. Rep. 495, 7 Atl. 368; Hooker v. Vandewater, 4 Denio, 349, 47 Am. Dec. 258; Stanton v. Allen, 5 Denio, 434, 49 Am. Dec. 282; State v. Hartford & N. H. R. Co. 29 Conn. 538; Elkins v. Camden & A. R. Co. 36 N. J Eq. Percival v. Blake, 2 Car. & P. 514; Lyons 5: Sayre v. Louisville Union Benev. Asso. 1 v. Hill, 46 N. H. 49, 88 Am. Dec. 189; Louis-Duv. 143, 85 Am. Dec. 613; Gulf, C. & S. F.

Lewis v. Galena & C. U. R. Co. 40 Ill. 281. Independent of the Constitution and statutes of Missouri, the common law gives the consignee the right to inspect goods consigned to him, and a reasonable opportunity for that purpose.

Burgess, J., delivered the opinion of the court:

R. Co. v. State, 72 Tex. 404, 1 L. R. A. 849, Messrs. Edward D. Kenna, Robert 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 335, 13 Am. St. Rep. Dunlap, Gardiner Lathrop, and Samuel 815, 10 S. W. 81; Tippecanoe County v. W. Moore for respondent. LaFayette, M. & B. R. Co. 50 Ind. 85; State v. Vanderbilt, 37 Ohio St. 590; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com. (Pa.) 4 Cent. Rep. 495, 7 Atl. 365; State ex rel. Leese v. Atchison & N. R. Co. 24 Neb. 143, 8 Am. St. Rep. 164, 38 N. W. 43; Thouron v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. (Tenn. Ch.) 5 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 77; Morgan v. Donovan, 58 Ala. 241; People v. North River Sugar Ref. Co. 121 N. Y. 582, 9 L. R. A. 33, 18 Am. St. Rep. 843, 24 N. E. 834; Gale v. Kalamazoo, 23 Mich. 344, 9 Am. Rep. 80; Bestor v. Wathen, 60 Ill. 138; York v. Merritt, 77 N. C. 213; Wight v. Kindskopf, 43 Wis. 344; Bowman v. Phillips, 41 Kan. 364, 3 L. R. A. 631, 13 Am. St. Rep. 292, 21 Pac. 230; Bell v. Leggett, 7 N. Y. 176; Feople ex rel. Peabody v. Chicago Gas Trust Co. 130 Ill. 268, 8 L. R. A. 497, 17 Am. St. Rep. 319, 22 N. E. 798; Chicago Gaslight & Coke Co. v. People's Gaslight & Coke Co. 121 Ill. 530, 2 Am. St. Rep. 124, 13 N. E. 169; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co. 130 U. S. 396, 32 L. ed. 979, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; Franklin Co. v. Lewiston Inst. for Savings, 68 Me. 48, 28 Am. Rep. 9; Franklin Bank v. Commercial Bank, 36 Ohio St. 350, 38 Am. Rep. 594; Mechanics' & Working Men's Mut. Sav. Bank v. Meriden Agency Co. 24 Conn. 159; Hazlehurst v. Savannah, G. & N. A. R. Co. 43 Ga. 13; Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Oregonian R. Co. 130 U. S. 1, 28, 32 L. ed. 837, 842, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 409; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co. 68 Pa. 173, 8 Am. Rep. 159; Chappel v. Brockway, 21 Wend. 159; New York & S. Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. 412; Atlantic & G. R. Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359, 363, 25 L. ed. 185, 187; Lauman v. Lebanon Valley R. Co. 30 Pa. 42, 72 Am. Dec. 685; State ex rel. Watson v. Standard Oil Co. 49 Ohio St. 137, 15 L. R. A. 145, 34 Am. St. Rep. 541, 30 N. E. 279; State ex rel. Snyder v. Portland Natural Gas & Oil Co. 153 Ind. 483, 53 L. R. A. 413, 74 Am. St. Rep. 314, 53 N. E. 1089; Bagg v. Wilmington, C. & A. R. Co. 109 Mo. 279, 14 L. R. A. 596, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 803, 26 Am. St. Rep. 569, 14 S. E. 79; United States v. Northern Securities Co. 120 Fed. 721; Union P. R. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 163 U. S. 564, 585, 41 L. ed. 265, 273, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1173; Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. 139 U. S. 43, 59, 60, 35 L. ed. 63, 68, 69, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478; Thomas v. West Jersey R. Co. 101 U. S. 71, 25 L. ed. 950; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago & 4. R. Co. 128 Mo. 224, 27 S. W. 568. 30 S. W. 430; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. People, 56 Ill. 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690; Illinois C. R. Co. v. People, 121 Ill. 304, 12 N. E. 670.

This is a proceeding by quo warranto, er informatione the attorney general, against the respondent, the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company, a railroad corporation doing business in this state, to oust it from the exercise of certain rights, privileges, and franchises alleged to be illegally exercised by it. The information alleges that the respondent is a corporation of the state of Kansas, operating lines of railway extending through the territory of Oklahoma and the states of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri, to Chicago, Illinois, and extending west and south from Kansas City to San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, California, and the Rio Grande river; that it has no authority to do any business in Missouri, except as a foreign railroad corporation, having complied with its laws and obtained a certificate to do business in the state; that Kansas City is a market city for grain and grain products, with large mills and elevator facilities, and, being located on the lines of many railroads, it reaches the eastcrn, western, northern, and southern markets; that it is important to the people of this state that Kansas City be maintained as a grain market; that there is in Kansas City a large number of firms or companies, employing a large number of men and having a large investment of capital in the business of dealing in, buying, selling, storing, and handling of grain, many of them doing business as commission merchants, and all of whom have made their investments upon the faith of the course of business hereinafter stated; that Chicago and the cities and towns upon the Mississippi river are strong competitors of Kansas City for grain; that it has been customary to ship grain to Kansas City in car and train-load lots, and place the same on what are called "hold tracks," for inspection, barter, and sale, and subsequent directions for delivery in the city of its destination; that on the faith of such universal custom and usage large numbers of the citizens of this state, and especially said persons at Kansas City, have engaged in the grain, elevator, milling, feed, and stock business, and invested large sums of money therein; that the course of business has been, in shipping grain to Kansas City, for the shippers to draw drafts against the shipments with bills of lading attached, with the right to the consignee to inspect the shipments on the "hold tracks" before making payment of such drafts; that

about 57,000 cars of grain are brought into south of Kansas City, said companies conthe Kansas City market and placed upon spired and confederated to adopt some device the "hold tracks" in the course of a year, or scheme in the way of an unlawful deof which about 67 per cent is brought in by livery charge for delivery at said Kansas the Santa Fé, Missouri, Pacific, Rock Island, City from the "hold tracks" to the point in and Burlington railway companies; that up Kansas City, Missouri, designated by the conto July 28, 1902, the universal custom at signee, which would enable them to haul out Kansas City and all cities west of the Mis- of Kansas City practically all the grain dessissippi river had not only been to place the tined east, north, and south thereof; that cars upon the "hold tracks," but to take such scheme is oppressive to the public, a them from thence to the point of delivery burden to the Kansas City market, interin said city designated by the consignee, feres with shipments thereto, and places the without additional charge for so much of consumers, merchants, and people of that the carriage as passed over the tracks of the city, and those there dealing in grain, at a initial carrier or the tracks used by it; disadvantage in attempting to compete with that switching charges over the tracks of the eastern, northern, and southern marconnecting lines were made, averaging $3 kets; that the result of the combination and per car; that forty-eight hours' free time conspiracy is to divert grain from the Kanfor inspection, sale, and delivery of cars, sas City market, which legitimately would after arrival on "hold tracks," is allowed, flow to the said market, or pass through the a charge of $1 per day per car being there- same for sale and ultimate disposition; after charged for demurrage; that the grain that said grain is concentrated at western coming to Kansas City is largely sent to points and shipped over said lines to points elevators for cleaning and grading and south, east, and north of Kansas City; that subsequent shipment out; that there are a the device and scheme so adopted was this: number of lines of railway, of which Kansas That said four through lines would make City is the western terminus, which are the an extra charge, called a "reconsignment competitors of respondent and the other charge," of $2 per car for delivering any through lines above mentioned for traffic des- car of grain in Kansas City, Missouri, at tined from or through Kansas City to east- any connection with any other railroad, or ern and southern points, and such com- at any warehouse or mill or elevator or panies seek to carry a part of the grain private industry therein, in addition to the brought into Kansas City by respondent to switching and demurrage charges hereinpoints east, south, and north of Kansas before mentioned, and in addition to the City; that respondent and other through freight charge made for carrying such grain lines use every effort and endeavor to carry to the consignee at Kansas City; that notice all the grain brought through or to Kansas thereof was given, making said charge efCity by them from points on their lines to fective on the 28th day of July, 1902; that points east, north, and south of Kansas said charge is ultimately paid by the proCity; that, if they succeed, competition be- ducer, places the Kansas City market at a tween the various railroads for the haul disadvantage as compared with other coneast, north and south of Kansas City will centrating points west of the Mississippi be destroyed, which competition is beneficial river, and is wholly unwarranted by law; to the public; that the Burlington, Mis- that said reconsignment charge is absorbed souri Pacific, Santa Fé, and Rock Island or refunded if grain coming into Kansas railway companies are the only companies City over one of said four lines is taken out having lines extending from the west of said city east, north, or south upon any through Kansas City, extending east there- of the other of said four lines, but not if it of, and reaching the Gulf ports and the goes out over any other line; that the effect ports upon the Great Lakes; that said four of said absorption or refunding of said companies have adopted the practice of hav-charge is to create a monopoly in the buying large elevators constructed on their ing, selling, and dealing in grain in favor lines in the heart of the grain producing of those who can and will ship out of country, for the storage of grain, for the purpose of having such grain carried over their lines for the longest possible distance, and to said Gulf and Lake ports, and they seek to impose a reconsignment charge at Kansas City of a sufficient amount to deter producers of grain from shipping the same to the Kansas City market; that to protect themselves against those producers and four lines, contrary to the Constitudealers who will not ship over the lines of tion and said four companies to markets east and shippers

Kansas City over one of said four lines; that the scheme and plan aforesaid is a discrimination in Kansas City, Missouri, in charges and facilities between transportation companies and individuals, contrary to the laws of the state of Missouri; that an exclusive right and privilege is thereby given to shippers out of Kansas City over said

laws of Missouri; that said have an unlawful advantage

over those persons, firms and corpora- which this court has authority or jurisdictions who do not so ship, and who are en- tion to inquire into or adjudicate concerngaged in similar business under similar ing in this proceeding. circumstances and conditions at the same It is insisted by defendant that the inforplace; that the competition of other rail- mation shows upon its face that it is proseroads for the transportation out of Kansas cuted solely for the vindication of private City of the 67 per cent of the grain or rights and the redress of private grievances, grain products received thereat over said in which the public has no interest, and four lines is thereby prevented; that said therefore this proceeding cannot be mainreconsignment charge constitutes a dis- tained. Upon the other hand, it is assertcrimination against the locality of Kansas ed that there is nothing in the information City, because no such charge is made upon to justify such claim, but, even if there was, grain or grain products transported to any this court has no power to interfere with other city in the state and afterwards trans- the determination of the attorney general, ported therefrom; that under the laws of upon an information of this character, that the state it is the duty of every railroad públic, as distinguished from the private, company to deliver grain at every point interests are involved. We concede that designated by the consignee on the line of the attorney general ex officio exercises his such road, including crossings with other own discretion, and without leave of court lines, without discrimination; that the re- has the right at any time to file in the susult is that the respondent is illegally preme court an information in quo warranto charging $2 on each car of grain shipped to wherein matters of public interest are inKansas City, Missouri, for delivering the volved; but that he cannot maintain such a same in said city to the point on its lines proceeding solely for the vindication of designated by the consignee, under the false private rights or the redress of private and fictitious pretense that it has the right grievances, in which the public has no to place the car upon the "hold tracks," interest, we think clear; and, if these facts notify the consignee of its arrival at such appear from the information, they may be point, and then, when he designates the taken advantage of by return, or special place of delivery, to make such charge for plea to the order to show cause. The chief such delivery, by calling it a "reconsign- grounds of complaint are those affecting the ment charge," and then refund same only rights of certain grain dealers in Kansas to the shipper or consignee who will ship City, and certain railroad companies whose from Kansas City, Missouri, over their termini are at that city, who deny the right lines, or any one of the said four through of defendant to make a particular charge, lines, a like amount of grain or grain prod-called a "reconsignment charge," on grain ucts. The defendant filed answer and return to the information in which are raised both issues of law and of fact.

(1)

and grain products made by four through lines of railroad, for a service actually rendered after delivering the grain upon The issues of law, upon which the cause certain tracks known as "hold tracks," is now submitted, are as follows: which said service had been performed That plaintiff ought not to have or main-gratuitously prior to July 28, 1902, and tain its aforesaid action, because it appears which said charge absorbed or was refunded upon the face of said information that the in the event of reshipment out of said city object sought thereunder is the vindication over any of said four lines of road. We of purely private rights and the redress of are unable to see wherein the public has private grievances, in which the public has any interest in the "reconsignment charge," no interest, and for which there is full and which is paid solely by certain grain dealadequate remedy both at law and in equity, ers and railroads whose western termini are available to each and all of the parties inter-at Kansas City for an additional service not ested therein; and an original proceeding by information in the nature of quo warranto is not a proper remedy therefor, and this court has no jurisdiction over said matters in this proceeding. (2) That there is In Spelling on Injunctions and Other no usurpation or unlawful exercise of any Extraordinary Remedies, 2d ed. vol. 2, § franchise, right, or privilege set out in said 1773, it is said: "It has been stated that information, and no sufficient facts stated quo warranto originated as a prerogative therein to constitute a cause of action, or remedy, and has always retained the char to entitle informant to the judgment acter as a judicial means for the assertion prayed, or any relief whatever, in this pro- of sovereign rights. It is, and always was, ceeding. (3) That there is no unlawful a mandate issuing from or at the instance exercise of any rights, privileges, or fran- of the sovereign against an individual or chises shown in and by said information, corporation, requiring him or it to show quo

covered by the freight into that city, and which they have the right to charge, provided it be nothing more than what is reasonable for the services rendered.