Court Opinion

ID: 8310481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:47:41.983175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:42.476865
License: Public Domain

Brewer, J.,
{orally.) In this case the only question is whether the double damage act of the state of Missouri is to be enforced as against railroad property in the hands of a receiver. The supreme court of the United States have affirmed the validity of that act;2 and I know of no reason why it is not applicable to every road in the state, whether in or out of the hands of a receiver. It is true there may be no equity, where the court takes possession of the assets of an insolvent corporation, in saying to one man, whose cow is killed, “We will double the value of your cow as a basis of adjustment,” and to a man who has done a day’s work, “We will adjust your claim only at the value of such work,” and then distribute the assets upon that basis between them. But while there may be no equity in that mode of distribution, (and so I said in response to a letter written by some one who wanted to have me send all these cow cases to the state courts for trial,) yet when the question is put directly before the court *13as to whether it will or not recognize the binding force of the statute against a road in the hands of its receivers, I have no doubt but that it is its duty to recognize it as binding, and adjust the compensation accordingly. The exceptions to the report of the master will be sustained, and the petition for rehearing denied.

 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Humes, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110.