TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Venner v. New York Central and Hudson River Rd. Co.

Clarence H. Venner, Doing Business Under the Name of C. H. Venner & Co., Appellant, v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company Et Al., Respondents

Venner v. N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River Rd. Co., 123 N.E. 893 (N.Y. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 21, 1919
Citations
123 N.E. 893226 N.Y. 5831919 N.Y. LEXIS 934
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 14, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. The action was brought for the purpose of preventing and, so far as accomplished, of undoing a consolidation (agreement executed April 29, 1914) of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, whose railroad began at New York city and ended at Buffalo, with the Lake Shore and Michigan Central Railway Company, whose line began at Buffalo and ended at Chicago and other western points, and of nine other railroad companies owning branch lines, all of them together representing a capitalization of over $900,000,000, which consolidation had been approved by all the public service and public utilities commissions whose approval was required, and by the interstate commerce commission. The basis of the plaintiff, appellant’s attack was that the consolidation was in violation of the Federal Anti-Trust Acts and various constitutional provisions and acts of the states through which the railroads of the consolidated company extend, forbidding the -consolidation of parallel and competing lines of railroad and forbidding the creation of monopolies. ,

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1919: 11931: 11943: 11947: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kalmanash v. Smith51 N.E.2d 681 (N.Y. 1943)
  2. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Powers Film Products, Inc.189 A.D. 556 (1919)
  3. Clayton v. Farish191 Misc. 136 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1947)
  4. In re New York Central Railroad233 A.D. 123 (1931)

Most recent

  1. Clayton v. Farish191 Misc. 136 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1947)
  2. Kalmanash v. Smith51 N.E.2d 681 (N.Y. 1943)
  3. In re New York Central Railroad233 A.D. 123 (1931)
  4. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Powers Film Products, Inc.189 A.D. 556 (1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list