St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-25
THE SUPREME COURT.
Several Important DecisionS--Dis-
senIing Opfnions.


The judges of the supreme court yester-
day turned in eleven decisions, several of
which were of considerable importance and
general interest. One of these was in the
case of John IL. Rhodes VS.. the Northern
Pacific Railroad company, suit involving
questions pertaining to the handling of
grain, and which has been the theme of
numerous discussions, not only in the lower
courts but in meetings of grain dealers and
before legislative committees. The case is
the one occurring at Little Falls, where
suit was brought by Rhodes against the
railway company Tor refusal to furnish cars
Tor the loading and hauling Of his grain
within a reasonable length of timer after
his request was made. There was
an elevator at that place con-
trolled by man named Sawyer,
to whom the company was furnishing cars
atthe time Mr.. Rhodes made his request.
The suit was brought on the ground that
the refusal to furnish cars when able to do
so was violation of the rules governing
railroad companies and other common car
riers. The elevator at the place, while it
was the recognized place for receiving grain,
was allowed by the road to mOnopolize the
business, and the exclusive control was had
by Mr.. Sawyer, so that all the contracts
were necessarily made between him and the
farmers. he, it was alleged, and numer-
Gus documents were adduced in proof, i'm
posed certain conditions on shippers which
We're not allowed by law, so that Mr..
Rhodes objected TO putting his grain through
the elevator and applied for cars for private
shipment. This question was fully dis
cuSsed by parties interested, before commit
tees at the last session OF the legis-
lature, at which time officials
of the Northern Pacific justified
the course of the company in allowing Mr.
Sawyer tomonopolize the elevator business,
on the ground that it was a small place,
comparatively little grain was shipped from
1t, and the expense was heavy; therefore,
as compensation in part TO Mr.. Sawyer, he
was given this privilege.
THE DECISION.
The court. in its decision yesterday, found
that the road refused ears to Mr.. Rhodes. as
alleged, but that it claimed that, because it
had established an elevator there. it was
complying with the rules and receiving any
goods offered for shipment. The court af-
firms that carriers have the right to desig-
nate and adopt reasonable rules and regula-
tons as TO the place or places where they
VIII receive freight for transportation. 1t
was the legislative intent that the roads
should provide suitable warehouse facilities
and the road might designate the ware
house and refuse to receive grain at
any other place, or to furnish cars elsewhere
than AT the warehouse, but when it failed
20 furnish these facilities il should have
allowed Others 10 build warehouses, as
grain cannot be loaded conveniently except
from elevators. Under these conditions,
too, the railroad should have furnished cars
at reasonable notice for private shipment if
desired. Sawyer kept the warehouse, and
made it one of the provisions on which
wheat should be taken that certain cOndi-
lions on his wheat ticket should be agreed
TO. Among these was one to the effect
that If 1t should be necessary TO move the
wheat it might be shipped from any other
point on the line, subject to the tariff rates
from that point to Duluth, Minneapolis or
81. Paul. The shipper was not bound to
submit 10 this, but had the right to demand
transportation from the point in question to
any Of the terminal points at regular rates.
In view Of the facts in the case, the Judges
held the shipper should have had the right
OF private facilities and that the railroad
had not lived up to the requirements of the
law by its shipping facilities.
Another decision was in the case of w.
+. Davidson against the St Paul, AIinneap-
oils X Manitoba road, where suit had been
brought to recover the value of an elevator
along the line of the road. which it was
alleged had caught fire from sparks from a
passing engine and burned. In the district
court decision in favor of the railroad had
been given and motion for a new trial de-
MED. The supreme court held, as the dis
trict court had done, that the testimony of
an engineer who had been in the business
nearly twenty years, as 10 how far and
under what conditions sparks could have
set fire 20 an elevator. was admissible and
the ruling of the district court was sus-
tanned.
DISSENTING OPINIONS.
In three of the cases the opinion of the
judges was not unanimous. In the case OF
j. Il. Gilillan VS.. c. W. Hobart, relative
to tax judgments. and in the State VS..
Joseph Kemp, relating to the drawing of
jurors, and the jurisdiction Of justices of
the peace in this matter, Judge Gilfllan
filed dissenting opinions
In the case of Kate G.. Welsh against
Hugh Wilson, where entrance had been
effected into plaintiffs house by sheriff TO
serve a writ Of attachment, the majority
held that, even though the private house
was used as a business house. no one had a
right 10 force an entrance to serve a civil
process. Judge Mitchell, however, dis
scented, believing that the doctrine that
every mans house is his castle" applied
only so far as bodily protection and safety
are concerned.