PLATT, TREASURER OF UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK; CITY OF NEW YORK V. PLATT, TREASURER OF UNITED STATES EXPRESS 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.
The United States Express Company, an unincorporated association engaged primarily in interstate commerce, challenged New York City ordinances requiring licenses for its wagons and drivers. The Supreme Court held that the city could not enforce license requirements against the company with respect to its interstate business and wagons employed in interstate commerce, reversing the lower court's decision and establishing that such local licensing requirements unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court.
" This suit was brought by the complainant as treasurer of the United States Express Company to restrain the enforcement against that company of certain license requirements contained in the ordinances of the City of New York. The ordinances are the same as those which were under consideration in Adams Express Co. v. New York, decided this day, and the decree of the Circuit Court was to the same effect in both cases. 189 Fed. Rep. 268.
The United States Express Company is an unincorporated association organized under the laws of New York and is extensively engaged in interstate commerce as a common carrier of packages. Over ninety-eight per cent, of its total business in New York City consists of the handling of traffic in interstate transportation. The interstate shipments in New York City are hauled by the Company’s wagons to and from the rail terminals of the Central Railroad of New Jersey, the Lehigh Valley Railroad and the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, .all within the State of New Jersey. It employs in its business 343 express wagons of which 189 are stabled in and operated exclusively from Jersey City, New Jersey; 123 are similarly kept in Communipaw, New Jersey; and the remainder, or 31, are kept in the Borough of Manhattan. Uoth the local and interstate traffic are handled in these wagons indiscriminately. : The Company has never taken out any licenses in the City of New York for its wagons or drivers.
The questions are the same as those which were presented in Adams Express Co. v. New York, supra, and a like decree should be entered restraining the enforcement of the ordinances against the Company with respeqt to the conduct of its interstate business and its wagons and drivers employed in interstate commerce.
The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court With direction to enter a decree in favor of the complainant in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1917)
-
United States v. Santore, 290 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1960)…control but also that control which is exercised through agents. It is well recognized both in civil and criminal law that the word “possession” may encompass both types of control. See, e. g., National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 1914, 232 U.S. 58, 34 S.Ct. 209, 58 L.Ed. 504; People v. Brenneauer, 1917, 101 Misc. 156, 166 N.Y.S. 801; Commonwealth v. Smith, 1958, 187 Pa. Super. 1, 144 A. 2d 258; Bennett Chevrolet Co. v. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., 1937, 58 R.I. 16, 190 A. 863, 109 A.L.R. 1077; Reynolds v.…
-
Neild v. Dist. of Columbia, 110 F.2d 246 (D.C. Cir. 1940)…HI) against encroachment by the national government have been held applicable to the District although not to the states. Thus, the provisions of the Fourth Amendment are not applicable to the states (National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 232 U.S. 58, 34 S.Ct. 209, 58 L.Ed. 504; Ohio ex rel. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445, 24 S.Ct. 703, 48 L.Ed. 1062), although they are to the District. United States v. Mattingly, 52 App.D.C. 188, 285 F. 922. The Fifth Amendment requires that a person in the District shall…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence