Lexplug logoLexplug

Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Nebraska

Supreme Court of United States
164 U.S. 403 (1896)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The taking by a state of the private property of one person or corporation, without the owner's consent, for the private use of another is not due process of law and violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


Facts:

  • The Missouri Pacific Railway Company owned the right of way and depot grounds at Elmwood, Nebraska.
  • The railway company had previously permitted two private firms to erect and operate grain elevators on its side track at the Elmwood station.
  • John W. Hollenbeck and other local farmers, operating as a voluntary association, raised large quantities of grain and needed storage.
  • The farmers' association applied in writing to the railway company for a location on its right of way to erect an elevator to store their own grain and that of their neighbors.
  • The railway company refused the association's application.
  • The farmers complained to the Nebraska Board of Transportation, alleging that the existing elevators were insufficient and engaged in price-fixing, and that the railway's refusal was unjust discrimination.

Procedural Posture:

  • John W. Hollenbeck and others filed a complaint with the Board of Transportation of the State of Nebraska against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company.
  • After a hearing, the Board of Transportation ordered the railway company to grant the complainants a location for their elevator on its right of way.
  • The railway company failed to comply with the order.
  • The State of Nebraska, on relation of the Board of Transportation, petitioned the Supreme Court of Nebraska for a writ of mandamus to compel the railway's compliance.
  • The Supreme Court of Nebraska (the state's highest court) found for the Board and adjudged that a writ of mandamus should issue if the railway did not comply within forty days.
  • The Missouri Pacific Railway Company brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States for review.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state order compelling a railroad company to grant a portion of its private land to a private association for the construction and maintenance of a grain elevator, for the private benefit of that association, constitute a taking of private property for private use in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Gray

Yes. A state order requiring a railroad corporation to surrender part of its land to private individuals for their own private use is, in essence, a taking of private property for a private use, which violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that the order was not a regulation of the railroad's business but an attempt to transfer an estate in the company's private property to an association of private individuals for their own benefit. The proposed elevator was for the purpose of storing the grain of the association members and their neighbors, not for a general public use. While a railroad holds its property for a public use, it is still private property. Compelling its transfer to another private entity without consent and for that entity's private purposes is not due process of law.



Analysis:

This case firmly establishes that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from taking private property for a purely private use, even when done under the guise of regulating a public utility to prevent discrimination. It sets a clear limit on the state's police power, distinguishing between legitimate regulation of a business affected with a public interest and an unconstitutional expropriation of private property for another private party's benefit. The decision reinforces the protection of private property rights against state interference that does not serve a genuine public purpose, forming a foundational principle for later 'takings' jurisprudence.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Nebraska (1896) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Nebraska