St. Louis, Kansas City R. Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 217 U.S. 247 (1910)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 217 U.S. 234, click here.

St. Louis, Kansas City Railroad Company

v. Wabash Railroad Company and City of St. Louis
Nos. 57

, 301

Argued December 9, 1909
Decided April 11, 1910
217 U.S. 247

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Syllabus

Jurisdiction in case of an intervention is determined by that of the main case, and where the original foreclosure case was based solely upon diverse citizenship, an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of appeals on a petition to enforce rights granted by a decree in an intervention in such foreclosure suit does not lie to this Court.

Where the circuit court of appeals remands a suit to the Circuit Court with instructions to enter a decree, the Circuit Court cannot, without permission from the circuit court of appeals, introduce new questions into the litigation, and the unwarranted introduction of new questions cannot be made the basis of jurisdiction. The mere construction of a decree involves no challenge of its validity.

It is proper for this Court to grant certiorari where the questions involve the construction of a prior decree of a United States Circuit Court granting rights of use of railroad tracks and terminal facilities in a great city, and where not only the private interests of the railroad companies and of the shippers, but also the greater interests of the public, require such rights to be settled.

Where a decree gives to another company the equal use and benefit of the right of way of a railroad company in a terminal city on a basis of compensation and apportionment of expenses, with provision for modification in case of unexpected changes, it will be construed as applying to the terminal facilities and the connections with industrial establishments as the same naturally increase in a growing city, and not to the mere right of way as it existed when the decree was entered, and the Court has power to provide for the use of such increased facilities on a proportionately increased rental based on the increased valuation.

152 F. 849 modified.

The facts, which involve the construction of the decree of the circuit court in 29 F. 546, as affirmed by this Court in the case of Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U.S. 1, are stated in the opinion.