GRANGER CASES. A series of cases de cided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1876, and reported in 94 United States Reports at pages 113 to 187, inclusive. Their several titles are as follows: Munn vs. Illinois; Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Ry. vs. Iowa; Peik vs. Chicago and North Western Ry.; Chicago, Mil waukee and Saint Paul Ry. vs. Ackley; Winona and Saint Peter Ry. vs. Blake; and Stone vs. Wisconsin. In his dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice Field designated the entire group as the 'Granger cases,' a name which has clung to them ever since, although neither the Patrons of Husbandry, nor any 'grange' or lodge of that association, nor any of its members or 'grangers' had any connection with these litigations.
The general principle deducible from these de cisions has been stated in these words: "When ever any person pursues a public calling, and sustains such relations to the public that the people must, of necessity, deal with him, and are under a moral duress to submit to his terms, if he is unrestrained by law, then, in order to prevent extortion and an abuse of his position, the price he may charge for his services, or use of his property, may be regulated by law." Applying this principle to the cases then before the court, it was held that a statute of Illinois was constitutional which prescribed maximum rates for the storage of grain in elevators, and prescribed penalties for charging higher rates than those named in the law. In the various railroad cases the court held that railroad com panies are engaged in a public employment; that their property is thereby "affected with a public interest, and no longer juris prima( only"; that it has been devoted by them to a use in which the public has an interest; that by such conduct they have in effect granted to the public an inter est in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the ex tent of the interest thus created; that they may withdraw their grant by discontinuing the use, but that so long as they maintain the use they must submit to the control.
The doctrine of these cases has been approved by many State courts. In Maine it was applied in sustaining the constitutionality of a statute prescribing the maximum tolls to be charged by the owner of a public gristmill. The court in that case said: "In the absence of Government aid, the individual proprietor, not pretending to serve the public, might maintain such mills as private mills, free from legislative interference, precisely as he might maintain a store, shop, or other private business; hut when he makes his mill public and attempts to serve the public. then he dedicates his mill to public use. and it becomes subject to public regulation and control." It is admitted by all courts that the doctrine of the Granger cases does not authorize the leg islature to destroy or confiscate property, even when it is affected with a public use, under guise of regulating rates or toils. Statutes im posing unreasonable regulations, or having the object of taking private property for public use without compensation, have been declared un constitutional. Consult Hare, American Consti tutional Law (Boston, 1889).