194 Wabash W. R. Co., Hanning, Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated R. Co. v., (Ind.)..... Hawthorn, Columbia & Puget Sound R. Co. v., (U. S.)...... Henly, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co. v., (Ohio).. 384 Henry (Mo.).. 207, 378 Hogan v. Northern Pacific R. Co., (Č. C.)..... Humphreys, Aerfetz v., (U. S.).... 459 Hurd o. Pacific R. Co., (Utah)..... 244 Indiana, Illinois & Iowa R. Co. v. Snyder, (Ind.). 181 & Western R. Co., (N. Y.)..... 405 Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Middleton, (Ill.)... v. Mugg, (Ind.). 589 449 Langlois v. Maine Cent. R. Co., (Me) 450 Long v. Chicago, Kansas & West- Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis v. Utz, (Ind.).. 550 45 209 225 In re Interstate Commerce Commission, (C. C.)....... 1 International & Great Northern R. 452 Co. v. Anderson, (Tex.).... 59 v. Summers, (Ind.).. 458 .194, 279, 447 v. Ryan, (Tex.) 587 Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. v. Williams, (Tex.).. In re, (C. C.)... Interstate Commerce Commission, Irvine. Flint & Pere Marquette v. Pearson, (Ala.) 194, 207 293 Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Louisville, N. O. & T. P. v. Douglass, (Miss.). 72 Lutz. Atlantic & Pacific R. Co., (N. Mex.).. 478 .225, 245 -. State, (Ala.) .... 37 Johnston v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., (C. C.)... 535 McKelvey v. Chesapeake & Ohio 230 352 v. Oregon S. L. & U. N. R. Co., (Ore.).. .133, 280, 293 Jolly v. Detroit, L. & N. R. Co., (Mich.).. 374 Justice . Pennsylvania Co., (Ind.) 604 Kansas City, Fort Scott & Gulf R. Co., Relyea v.. (Mo.)....... 578 Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham R. Co. v. Burton, (Ala.). v. Crocker, (Ala.).. -v. Webb, (Ala.). 7 47 388 396 571 449 Young, (U. S.). Newport News & M. V. R. 577 New York, Lake Erie & Western Co., New York & Northern R. New York & Northern R. R. Co. v. McCormack, (Ind.). People v. Phyfe, (N. Y.).... 7 Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. Co. v. v. Donnelly's Adm'r, (Va ) v. Lindamood's Adm'r, (Va.). 576 v. Munnally, (Va.)..... : 276 Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Amato, (U. S.).. 198 30 30 194 v. Barnes, (N. Dak.) 616 384 611 Richmond & Danville R. Co. v. 262 O'Donnell v. Duluth, S. S. & A. R. v. Garner, (Ga.).. 451 135, 145 Mason v. (N. Car.).. 183 Old Colony R. Co., Dolan v., v. Pannill, (Va.)... 396 (Mass.). Tyndale v., (Mass.). 467 v. Weems, (Ala.).... 254 O'Malley v. Missouri Pacific R. Ross, Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. O'Neill v. Chicago & I. C. R. Co., Rumseye. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. Co., (Pa.)....... 376 Russ Wabash Western R. Co.,(Mo.) 610 | Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Brick, 375, 445 Co., (Mo.). .86, 449 Ryan v. Louisville, N. O. & T. R. v. Crilly, (La.). v. Geiger, (Tex.). 104 448 Co., (La.)... 459 Thomas v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH RAILROAD CASES. VOL. LIII. In re INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. (U. 8. Circuit Court, N. D. Ill., Dec. 7, 1892, 53 Fed. Rep. 476.) Interstate Commerce Act-Jurisdiction of Federal Courts-Constitutional Law. So much of section 12 of the Interstate Commerce Act as authorizes or requires the United States courts to use their process in aid of inquiries before the Interstate Commerce Commision is unconstitutional and void. APPLCATION by the Interstate Commerce Commission for an order to compel the production of certain books and papers before the commission, and the answering of certain questions. Thomas E. Milchrist, U. S. Dist. Atty., for Interstate Commerce Commission. Prussing, Hutchins & Goodrich, for Calumet & Blue Island Railway Company. Williams, Holt & Wheeler, for Brimson, Keefe & Stanley. GRESHAM, Circuit Judge.-June 18, 1892, the Interstate Commerce Commission made an order at Washington, requiring the Calumet & Blue Island Railway Company, the Joliet & Blue Island Railway Company, the Chicago Case stated. & Southeastern Railway Company, the Chicago & Kenosha Railway Company, and the Milwaukee, Bay View & Chicago Railway Company, and certain other railway companies, to appear at Chicago on July 13, to answer an informal complaint, made by unknown persons, charging. |
