STOCK YARDS. The business of stock yards is not of itself interstate commerce, within the meaning of the Sherman Act; Hopkins v. U. S., 171 U. S. 578, 19 Sup. Ct. 40, 43 L. Ed. 290. But in U. S. v. Stock Yari Co., 226 U. S. 286, 33 Sup. Ct. 83, 57 L. Ed. 226, it was held that a stock yard was sub ject to the Act to Regulate Commerce and must conform to its requirements as to filing tariffs and desist from unlawful discrimina tions. That act, as amended, extends to all terminal facilities. The fact tbat a rarticur lar stock yard extends over the boundary line between two states does not make the business interstate commerce ; Cotting v. Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S.,79, 22 Sup. Ct. 30, 46 L. Ed. 92.
Live stock shipped from various states to the yards of a stock yards association in an other state by the soliqatation and procure ment of the members thOreof, to be there sold or to be reshipped to °tiler states if the mar ket should be unsatisfactory, does not cease to be a subject of interstate commerce as soon as it reaches such yards and is there unload ed, nor until it has been further acted upon so as to become mingled with the mass of property in the state ; Hopkins v. U. S., 171 U. S. 578, 19 Sup. Ct. 40, 43 L. Ed. 290.
A stock yards company maintaining tracks connecting with the tracks of railroad com panies, and which by its own locomotives and servants transports cars containing inter state shipments to and from the tracks of the railroad companies, is held to be a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, though it collects compensation only from the railroad companies and is paid under a contract between it and them ; Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha v. U. S., 169 Fed. 404, 94
C. C. A. 626.
The business of stock yards is of such a public nature as to justify a state legislature in imposing rules and regulations for its government ; Cotting v. Stock Yards, 183 U. S. 79, 22 Sup. Ct. 30, 46 L. Ed. 92.
Where, in an action against a stock yards compkny to recover for overcharges on live stock, the answer fails to show that the stat utory rates will not be a reasonable return on the money invested in the property devot ed to such use, they are not so palpably un reasonable and unjust as applied to the de fendant stock yards company as to ouut to a taking of property without just compen sation ; Ratcliff v. Stock Yards Co., 74 Ran. 1, 86 Pac. 150, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 831, 118 Am. St. Rep. 298, 10 Ann. Cas. 1016.
On an issue as to whether railroad stock yards are a nuisance, evidence that there is no other reasonably convenient and practi cable location is admissible; Dolan v. R. Co., 118 Wis. 362, 95 N. W. 385.