Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/527

 12; Nash v. Page, 80 Ky. 539; Girard Point Storage Co. v. Southwarck Foundry Co., 105 Pa. St. 248; Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 239; Brechbill v. Randall, 102 Ind. 528, 1 N. E. Rep. 362; Webster Telephone Case, 17 Neb. 126, 22 N. W. Rep. 237; Stone v. Railroad Co., 62 Miss. 607; Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 250, 5 N. E. Rep. 178; Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. v. Baltimore & O. Tel. Co., 66 Md. 399, 7 Atl. Rep. 809; Delaware, etc., R, Co., v. Central 8. Y. Co., 45 N. J. Eq. 50,17 Atl Rep. 146; Zanesville v. Gaslight Co., 47 Ohio St. 1, 23 N. E. Rep. 55. The opinion further declares: ‘We are of the opinion that the act of the legislature of New York is not contrary to the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, and does not deprive the citizen of his property without due process of law; that the act, in fixing the maximum charges which it specifies, is not unconstitutional, nor is it so in limiting the charge for shoveling to the actual cost thereof; and that it is a proper exercise of the police power of the state.” The court further say: “Op the testimony in the case before us, the business of elevating grain is a business charged with a public interest, and those who carry it on occupy a relation to the community analogous to that of common carriers. The elevator owner in fact retains the grain in his custody for an appreciable period of time, because he receives it into his custody, weighs it, and then discharges it, and his employment is thus analogous to that of a warehouseman. In the actual state of the business the passage of the grain to the city of New Yark and other places on the seaboard would, without the use of elevators, be practically impossible.” In the course of its opinion the court took occasion to refer to the case of Railroad Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462, and to say that the opinion of the court in that case did not overrule Munn v. Illinois, as was claimed by Mr. Justice Bradley in his dissenting opinion. The court said: “But the opinion of the court did not say so, nor did it refer to Munn v. People, and we are of opinion that the decision in the case in 134 U. 8. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462, as will be hereafter shown, is quite distinguishable from the present case.” Further on the court, in speaking of the Minnesota case, say: ‘That was a very differ-