FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ARDENIA DAVIS AND SAMUEL C. DAVIS, HER HUSBAND, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for damages in an interstate shipment case, finding that conflicting state and federal regulations were improperly applied, confusing the issues and harming the carrier.
The court held that conflicting state and federal regulations were improperly applied, confusing the issues to the injury of the carrier.
“Applicable Federal statutes are paramount herein to the exclusion of inconsistent State rules of liability and procedure.”
Establishes the supremacy of federal law in interstate commerce cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA carload of goods and livestock were injured by fire during an interstate shipment. One of the plaintiffs was in the car with a lighted lantern as a …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*345] Per Curiam.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment for damages for a carload of goods and live stock injured by fire in course of an interstate shipment under bill of lading stipulations affecting the carrier’s liability. One of the plaintiffs was in the car as a caretaker of the live stock and used a lighted lantern therein. Defenses permissible under the Federal Law were interposed and to some extent allowed. Applicable Federal statutes are paramount herein to the exclusion of inconsistent State rules of liability and procedure. In the proceedings conflicting State and Federal regulations affecting substantial rights of the parties were so applied as to confuse the issues to the injury of the carrier, as shown by the damages awarded. See Missouri, Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. Ward, 244 U. S. 383, Sup. Ct. Rep. ; Erie R. R. Co. v. Stone, 224 U. S. 332; Sup Ct. Rep. ; Cau v. Texas & P. R. Co., 194 U. S. 427, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663; Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; Southern R. Co. v. Prescott, 240 U. S. 632, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 469; Central Vermont R. Co. v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 391; Georgia, F. & A. R. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541; G. H. & S. Ry. v. Wallace, 223 U. S. 481.
Reversed for a new trial.
Bowne,, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Plant City Growers' Ass'n, 78 Fla. 2 (Fla. 1919)…rial the charges of the court should be confined to the issues made by the plea [*3] dings and the evidence adduced thereunder, applying the law as to interstate shipments. A. C. L. v. Sandlin, 75 Fla. 539, 78 South. Rep. 667; F. E. C. Ry. v. Davis, 76 Fla. 344, 79 South. Rep. 637. Reversed. All concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1913)
- Georgia v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1916)
- Cent. Vt. Ry. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1915)
- S. Ry. Co. v. Prescott, 240 U.S. 632 (U.S. 1916)
- Kan. City S. Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1913)
- Galveston v. Wallace, 223 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1912)
- Missouri v. Ward, 244 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1917)
- Stowe in Bankruptcy of Harvey v. Harvey, 241 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1916)
- CAU v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 194 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1904)