The Elk County advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Pa.) 1868-1883, 1880-01-22
Important Decision of the Supreme
Court.

IN OF TRANSPORTATION DECLARED
no DE UNFOUNDED - RAILWAY
COMPANIES HAVE THE RIGHT 70
ADOPT ALL JUST AND REASONABLE
METHODS TO INCREASE BUSINESS.
~ NttnbaU ct al. cs. Pennsylvania
R0iirOdd Company and AHeyheny
VnIley Rdiiroud Company. Error
10 court Of Common Pleas No. l. 0f
.dUeghcny County. Supreme Court
of Pcnnsyicdnid. Decision fled IN
January, 1880.
These were actions on the case
against the defendants for conspiracy
and injury to the plaintiffs respect
lively in their business. Plaintiffs
were engaged in the transportation of
| crude oil In boats and barges down the
Allegheny river to Pittsburgh. The
Allegheny Valley Railroad Company
was engaged IN transporting it by
rail. The crude oil was brought to
Pittsburgh by both modes, principally
for the purpose of being there refined,
| and then sent to the seaboard for
market. Competition, was thus Gre
ated. The railroad company had
some advantage over the barge men.
| At some seasons of the year there was
an insulliciency of water in the river,
| at others it was frozen. The railroad
could carry at all times. At first the
crude oil was carried in barrels.
AS the quantity largely increased,
| tanks were substituted. This made
4&eFansportation by railroad more desir-
able and gave it an additional advan-
tage.
The cause Of complaint was Chat the
Allegheny Valley Railroad Company
! entered into an arrangement with the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the
effect of which was to take from the
plaintiffs that transportation of oil
which they otherwise would have OBJ
tained. 1t was not complained that
the price of freight from Pittsburgh
east increased by this arrangement,
nor that the public in any manner
suffered thereby. The evidence to
show the alleged illegal conspiracy
disclosed the fact that each party
carried crude oil from any port at
which it was taken to Pittsburgh and
its vicinity, at one rate, without re-
gard to distance, and that the retiners
had uniform through rate for refined
oil to the seaboard, by the Allegheny
Valley and Pennsylvania Railroad,
from any given point where the oil
reached the former, rude and crude.
rhe Allegheny Valley Railroad eros
scs the Western Pennsylvania Rail.
road at Allegheny Junction, and, by
with the main line of the Pennsyl
vania Railroad. In order more sue
cessfuliy to compete with river trans
portation the Allegheny Vale!
Railroad carried crude oil to the
refner at Pittsburgh and its manu-
facturcd product to Allegheny june
> ton at one uniform rate, thus giving
: to all reiiners at Pittsburgh as favor
able returns as if their retineries haC
been located mt Allegheny junction
They had one uniform rate on oil from
the oil regions to the seaboard.
The case against the PennsyIvani;
Railroad Company was to the eflec
that it received its pay from the ALE
gheny Valley Railroad Company
l partly in receipts showing none,
paid, whilst from the boatman it eX
r acted payment in money. Upon tn
plaintiffs own case the above fact
t were made to appear, and the cour
before whom the cases were hear,
4 entered compulsory nonsuits, upol
the ground that the plaintiffs ha
Y failed to show any illegal conspirac
on the part of the defendant. Thi
e action of the court was assigned as el
ror by Munhall ct 0L., who brough
y the case to the Supreme Court, col
tending that upon the evidence at
c duced they had made out such cas-
as entitled them to go to II jury.
a The Supreme Court, in passing upo
5 the cause in an opinion by Justic Me
cur, says: -
Each party had an undoubted rigl
to enter into just and fair arrange
> ment with a corporation or associatio
Of men whereby its business shoul
Il be increased, although the effect of tn
arrangement may have been to TAX
, business from the other Eth,
;, party, with q view of increasing h
business, may extend more favorabl
i terms to all shippers, although othe
II engaged in the business may inciden
} ally be injured thereby. The fa'
that the public patronize those lin'
/ of transportation which give the mo-
Il favorable terms constitute no ju
ground of complaint" .
Z After reciJing the facts of the cas-
J. against the Allegheny Valley Railroa
Justice Mercur says, 1--WE see nothin
l. unfair in this arrangement. TO den
i this right to the Allegheny Vale
y Railroad would be an unwarranted il
* reference with the management of i
business, and would deprive the publ
u of the advantage of the competition
y which it is justly entitled.
J. "Then as the action of the Penn
Is sylvania Railroad Company in I'll
a transportation of refined oil froI