The public warehouses established under the law are public agencies, and the defendants, as licensees, pursue a public employment. They are clothed with a duty toward the public. The evidence shows that defendants, as public warehousemen storing grain in their own warehouses, are enabled to, and do, overbid legitimate grain dealers by exacting from them the established rate for storage while they give up a part of the storage charges when they buy or sell for themselves. By this practice of buying and selling through their own elevators the position of equality between them and the public whom they are bound to serve is destroyed, and by the advantage of their position they are enabled to crush out, and have nearly crushed out, competition in the largest grain market of the world. The result is, that the warehousemen own three-fourths of all the grain stored in the public warehouses of Chicago, and upon some of the railroads the only buyers of grain are the warehousemen on that line. The grades established for different qualities of grain are such that the grain is not exactly of the same quality in each grade, and the difference in market price in different qualities of the same grade varies from two cents per bushel in the better grades to fifteen cents in the lower grades. The great bulk of grain is brought by rail and in car-loads and is inspected on the tracks, and the duty of the warehousemen is to mix the car-loads of grain as they come. Such indiscriminate mixing gives an average quality of grain to all holders of warehouse receipts. Where the warehouseman is a buyer the manipulation of the grain may result in personal advantage to him. Not only is this so, but the warehouse proprietors often overbid other dealers as much as a quarter of a cent a bushel and immediately re-sell the same to a private buyer at a quarter of a cent less than they paid, exacting storage which more than balances their loss. In this way they use their business as warehousemen to drive out competition with them as buyers. It would be idle to expect a warehouseman to perform his duty to the public as an impartial holder of the grain of the different proprietors if he is permitted to occupy a position where his self-interest is at variance with his duty. In exercising the public employment for which he is licensed he cannot be permitted to use the advantage of his position to crush out competition and to combine in establishing a monopoly by which a great accumulation of grain is in the hands of the warehousemen, liable to be suddenly thrown upon the market whenever they, as speculators, see profit in such course. The defendants are large dealers in futures on the Chicago Board of Trade, and together hold an enormous supply of grain ready to aid their opportunities as speculators. The warehouseman issues his own warehouse receipt to himself. As public warehouseman he gives a receipt to himself as individual, and is enabled to use his own receipts for the purpose of trade and to build up a monopoly and destroy competition. That this course of dealing is inconsistent with the full and impartial performance of his duty to the public seems clear. The defendants answered that the practice had a beneficial effect upon producers and shippers, and naturally were able to prove that when, by reason of their advantages, they were overbidding other dealers there was a benefit to sellers, but there was an entire failure to show that in the general average there was any public good to producers or shippers. Decree affirmed. UNITED STATES EX REL v. DELAWARE & HUDSON RAIL- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1909. SIX writs of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to review judgments denying mandamus to compel certain railway carriers to refrain from interstate transportation of coal from the Pennsylvania anthracite regions. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Also six appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to review decrees dismissing bills in equity seeking to accomplish the same result by injunction. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. That it uses, in the conduct of its business as a common carrier, approximately 1,700,000 tons of anthracite coal, of pea size or smaller, annually, and will require more for such use in the future; that to obtain this coal in these economic sizes it is necessary to break up coal; leaving the larger sizes, which must be disposed of otherwise; that great waste would result if it were forbidden to transport to market in interstate commerce these larger sizes thus resulting. That defendant's rights to acquire its holding of coal land, its rights to own and mine coal and to transport the same to market in other states as well as in Pennsylvania, and its leases of other railroads, were acquired many years prior to the enactment of the so-called "interstate commerce act," and of the said amendment thereto known as the "commodities clause." Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the court: We then construe the statute as prohibiting a railroad company engaged in interstate commerce from transporting in such commerce articles or commodities under the following circumstances and conditions: (a) When the article or commodity has been manufactured, mined, or produced by a carrier or under its authority, and, at the time of transportation, the carrier has not, in good faith, before the act of transportation, dissociated itself from such article or commodity; (b) When the carrier owns the article or commodity to be transported, in whole or in part; 1 Only the conclusions are printed. — ED. (c) When the carrier, at the time of transportation, has an interest, direct or indirect, in a legal or equitable sense, in the article or commodity, not including, therefore, articles or commodities manufactured, mined, produced, or owned, etc., by a bona fide corporation in which the railroad company is a stockholder. The question then arises whether, as thus construed, the statute was inherently within the power of Congress to enact as a regulation of commerce. That it was, we think is apparent; and if reference to authority to so demonstrate is necessary, it is afforded by a consideration of the ruling in the New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. Case, to which we have previously referred. We do not say this upon the assumption that, by the grant of power to regulate commerce, the authority of the government of the United States has been unduly limited, on the one hand, and inordinately extended, on the other, nor do we rest it upon the hypothesis that the power conferred embraces the right to absolutely prohibit the movement between the states of lawful commodities, or to destroy the governmental power of the states as to subjects within their jurisdiction, however remotely and indirectly the exercise of such powers may touch interstate commerce. On the contrary, putting these considerations entirely out of mind, the conclusion just previously stated rests upon what we deem to be the obvious result of the statute as we have interpreted it; that it merely and unequivocally is confined to a regulation which Congress had the power to adopt and to which all pre-existing rights of the railroad companies were subordinated. Armor Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 52 L. ed. 681, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428.1 1 Compare New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 200 U. S. 361.-ED. CHAPTER V. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE FACILITIES. FELL v. KNIGHT. EXCHEQUER, 1841. [8 M. & W. 269.] [CASE. The declaration stated that the defendant did keep a certain common inn for the reception of travellers, that the defendant had sufficient room and accommodation for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay therefor; nevertheless that the defendant not regarding his duty as such innkeeper, denied the plaintiff accommodation, etc. Plea. That the defendant offered to the plaintiff to allow him to sleep in any one of certain bedrooms; but the plaintiff refused to sleep in any of said bedrooms, but requested that candles might be brought him in order that he might sit up all night in another upstairs room in said inn, which the defendant then reasonably refused.] Lord ABINGER, C. B. I am of opinion that the plea is sufficient. I do not think a landlord is bound to provide for his guest the precise room the latter may select. Where the guest expresses a desire of sitting up all night, is the landlord bound to supply him with candle-light in a bedroom, provided he offers him another proper room for the purpose? The plea shows, that the landlord did everything that was reasonable. The short question is, is a landlord bound to comply with the caprice of his guests, or is he justified in saying, You shall not stay in a room in this way, and under these circumstances? I think he is not bound to do so. All that the law requires of him is, to find for his guests reasonable and proper accommodation; if he does that, he does all that is requisite. I am also inclined to think, notwithstanding the case which has been cited of Rex v. Jones, that the declaration is bad for want of an allegation of a tender of the amount to which the innkeeper would be reasonably entitled for the entertainment furnished to his guest; it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to allege that he was ready to pay; he should state further that he was willing and offered to pay. There may be cases where a tender may be dispensed with; as, for instance, where a man shuts up his doors or windows, so that no tender can be made; but I rather think those facts ought to be ⚫ stated in the indictment or declaration; and I have, therefore, some doubt as to the complete correctness of the judgment of my Brother Coleridge, in the case cited: but it is not necessary to decide that point in the present case. This rule must be discharged. ALDERSON, B., and ROLFE, B., concurred. Rule discharged. DOYLE v. WALKER. QUEEN'S BENCH, UPPER CANAda, 1867. [29 Upp. Can. Q. B. 502.] DRAPER, C. J., delivered the judgment of the Court. The plaintiff neither asserts nor proves any special contract. He rests his case upon what he assumes to be his right resulting from his being a guest in an inn, and the defendant being the innkeeper. He assumes that having been let into possession of a room, he has acquired such an exclusive right of possession as against his landlord, so long as he continues to occupy it, that the latter is liable as a trespasser for entering and removing his trunks out of it. We do not so understand the law. The contention appears to us to be inconsistent with the well settled duties, liabilities, and rights of the innkeeper. Whatever may be the traveller's rights to be received as a guest and to be reasonably entertained and accommodated, the landlord has, in our opinion, the sole right to select the apartment for the guest, and, if he finds it expedient, to change the apartment and assign the guest another, without becoming a trespasser in making the change. If, having the necessary convenience, he refuses to afford reasonable accommodation he is liable to an action, but not of trespass. There is no implied contract that a guest to whom a particular apartment has been assigned shall retain that particular apartment so long as he chooses to pay for it. We think the contention on the plaintiff's part involves a confusion between the character and position of an innkeeper and a lodging housekeeper. It appears to us further, that although the innkeeper is bound to receive, the guest must not only be ready and willing, and before he can insist as of right to be received that he must offer, to pay whatever is the reasonable charge; and that a guest who has been received loses the right to be entertained if he neglects or refuses to pay upon reasonable demand. The plaintiff's bill accrued due de die in diem, and had been in arrear though frequently demanded. On both points, we think, upon the evidence the plaintiff failed, and that there should be a new trial without costs. |