SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
BURLINGTON LUMBER COMPANY
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.
Southern Railway Company challenged a North Carolina penalty statute requiring it to receive goods for shipment, claiming the statute violated the Commerce Clause as applied to interstate commerce. The Supreme Court reversed the state court's judgment against the railway, following its earlier decisions in related cases that had invalidated the statute insofar as it regulated interstate commerce.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action to recover penalties under a statute of North Carolina for refusal to. receive goods for shipment. As the statute is the same that was held bad, so far as it concerns commerce among the States, in Southern Railway Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, and Southern Railway Co v. Reid & Beam, 222 U. S. 444, a short statement will be enough. On January 26, 1907, the Burlington Lumber Company tendered to the Railway Company at Burlington, North Carolina, certain machinery for .shipment to Saginaw, Michigan, on á through bill of lading. Saginaw was not on the Railway Company’s line, the company had no rates to Saginaw and the agent had to delay in order to inquire of his superiors. The result was that the through bill of lading was not issued’.until April 3. The suit, as we have said', is for the penalty and nothing else.. The Supreme Court of the State decided against the Railway on the same ground that it did in the decisions already reversed.- In the circumstances it seems unnecessary to discuss the. case more at length.
Judgment reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (53 total)
-
Price v. Voyle C. Johnson and Mary Howland, 222 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…e shares or certificates of such shares which were pledged, citing numerous authorities, including Henderson v. Usher, 125 Fla. 709, 170 So. 846; Gorman v. Littlefield, 229 U. S. 19, 33 S.Ct. 690, 57 L.Ed. 1047; Sexton v. Kessler & Co., 225 U.S. 90, 32 S.Ct. 657, 56 L.Ed. 995; Lavien v. Norman, 1 Cir. 1932, 55 F. 2d 91. The holding of the trial court that Johnson was entitled to receive 440,700 shares of Airlift stock held by appellants (through the receiver), is supported by competent substantial evidence…
-
Burrowes v. Nimocks, 35 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1929)…bank as security for the deposit of the county, but also that they should be delivered to the county treasurer upon his demand at any time. True, there was a right of substitution on the part of the bank, but, as in Sexton v. Kessler, 225 U. S. 90, 32 S. Ct. 657, 56 L. Ed. 995, to which we shall refer at greater length hereafter, this right of substitution was limited by the agreement. The bank had the right to withdraw a note only upon putting up another of equal value. Under the authorities above cited, t…1 / 3
-
Voltz v. Treadway & Marlatt. in re Peters Mill Work & Lumber Co., 59 F.2d 643 (6th Cir. 1932)…or impeached., Equitable liens, if given before the four months’ period preceding bankruptcy, are valid and enforceable against the trustee. Thompson v. Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 516, 25 S. Ct. 306, 49 L. Ed. 577; Sexton v. Kessler & Co., 225 U. S. 90, 32 S. Ct. 657, 56 L. Ed. 995; Foster v. Manufacturers’ Finance Company, 22 F.(2d) 609 (C. C. A. 1); Marshall v. Roettinger, 294 F. 158 (C. C. A. 6). The question here presented seems to be whether a parol assignment of specific funds not yet collected, but to be…
Previewing 3 of 53 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. Ry. Co. v. Reid, 222 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1912)
- S. Ry. Co. v. Reid & Beam, 222 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1912)