New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1916-07-05
DECISION UPHELD
BY HIGHER COURT
JUDGE OLSON'S FINDINGS IN
IMPORTANT RATE CASE ARE
AFFIRMED.
SHIPPERS WILL PAY BUT ONE
RATE OVER OMAHA AND
NORTHWESTERN

The state supreme court in an opinion
filed Friday held the Omaha and North
western railroads to be one road for
rate-making purposes in the case of the
State of Minnesota, by James Hall,
respondent, VS.. c. & N. w. R.y Co. ct
al, appellants; G. W. Van Dusen &
Co. ct al, respondents. Judge Olson
rendered the decision in the district
court and the supreme court upheld his
decision.
For legal purposes the two roads are
separate corporations. The opinion of
the court was an affirmation of findings
made by the Lyon county district court
which held against an order issued by
the state railroad and warehouse COM
mission fixing joint freight rates for the
two roads.
The case found its way into the Mar
shall county district court on appeal of
Attorney General Smith and James Hall,
representing several grain shippers.
The appellants contended the Joint rate
as established by the commission per-
mitted overcharges and was in conflict
with the eastman distance tariff law.
The two railroads appealed from the
reversal of the commissions order as
made by the Lyon county district court
and the supreme court Friday affirmed
the decision of the lower court. The
two roads named are interlocking to the
extent that one owns a majority of the
stock of the other. Though two sets
of Offices are maintained, both have
much in common.
Passing on the question of basic rates
the supreme court says: 49, .,'...
1T is held that for the purpose of
establishing freight rates the two COM
panies constitute one road and line and
that the intra-state continuous mileage
rates fixed pursuant to the distance
tariff law apply and that the commission
is without authority to fix a joint rate.'
This case will prove far-reaching in
it's effect and will mean thousands of
dollars in freight savings to consignors
who ship commodities over both roads.
The case was tried before Judge Olsen of
this city and it is certainly feather in
his cap to have his decision upheld by
the supreme court.
Another case in which the citizens
of Brown County are interested was
decided the same day by the Supreme
Court, and in which the decision of the
lower Court in Edward F. Berkner ct
al. VS.. James Lewis, administrator,
Nicklas Schmitt, administrator, and
Martin Sherman, respondents was af-
firmed. This has been long drawn
out proceeding. The cases were ORR
ginally started in May 1911. They
have been tried twice in District Court
before Judge A. R. Pau of Mankato
and have been to the Supreme Court
twice, the last decision being final.
The cases were originally started
against William Schmitt, Dudley G.
D'Evelyn and Martin Sherman of Stark in
this County and were brought for the
purpose of recovering three horses or
their value. Since the cases we're started,
two of the defendants have committed
suicide and two of the horses have died.
but the cases went on just the same.
Briefly stated the facts are these.
Frank Outright who was the owner
OF the three horses in question had
mortgaged them to Willis CUNNINGHAM
and later had given a second mortgage
on the same property to Berkner Bros.
of Sleepy Eye. Instead of foreclosinq
his mortgage, Cunningham and Curt
right agreed between themselves that
the mortgaged property should be sold
at public auction and that from the
proceeds Cunningham's mortgage should
be paid and this was done.
The three defendants purchased a
horse each at the public auction and
later on the Berkners made demand on
them for the horses under their second
mortgage which was refused and the
suits were started.
In the first trial the Court held that
the mortgage of Berkner Bros. was in
valid and upon an appeal to the Supreme
Court that tribunal held that the mort
gage in question was valid and for that
reason ordered new trial. In the Sc
cond trial, the case was decided on it's
merits against the plaintiffs and the
Supreme Court upheld the findings of
the lower Court.