MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
SEALY ET AL., PARTNERS AS HUTCHINGS, SEALY & 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 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company issued fraudulent bills of lading for grain that was never actually delivered, which were subsequently transferred to Hutchings, Sealy & Company who advanced money based on them; the railroad later raised a federal law defense after the Kansas courts had twice decided the case under state law. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that the federal question was raised too late to be considered and was also unsubstantial because the transaction predated the Carmack Amendment and was properly governed by state law.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the court.
In June, 1900, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company issued bills of lading to shipper’s order, covering 27 carload's of grain to be shipped from Kansas City, Missouri, to Galveston, Texas. No grain was in fact delivered to it for shipment; but before the fraud was discovered, the alleged shipper transferred the bills of lading to Hutchings, Sealy & Co., who made advances thereon. The advances were not fully repaid; and in 1905 they brought suit against the railroad in' a state district court of Kansas. The railroad defended on the ground that, since the bills of lading had been delivered in Missouri, the transaction was governed by the Missouri law, and that under the law of that State the railroad was not liable. For more than eight years the record contained no suggestion of a federal question, the case having meanwhile been passed upon twice by the Supreme Court of Kansas (Railway Co. v. Hutchings, 78 Kansas, 758; Hutchings v. Railway Co., 84 Kansas, 479).
Thereafter, in 1913, the railroad presented the claim that the transaction was governed by the federal law; and that, by it, the defendant was not liable. The Supreme Court of Kansas, apparently as a matter of state practice, declared that the contention came too late to be considered; and entered judgment for the plaintiff. 98 Kansas, 225. The case comes here on writ of error under § 237 .of the Judicial Code. The federal question was not seasonably raised. Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U. S. 86, 91; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Woodford, 234 , U. S. 46, 51. But it is also unsubstantial. Prior to the Carmack Amendment (Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, § 7, 34 Stat. 584, 595) the rights of the parties were governed by state law, Boston & Maine Railroad v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 109-110; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133; and the Carmack Amendment does not apply, as the cause of action, if any arose six years before the passage of that act. The writ of error is
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Am. Sur. Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1932)…U. S. 52, 56-57; Jacobi v. Alabama, 187 U. S. 133; Layton v. Missouri, 187 U. S. 356; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Woodford, 234 U. S. 46, 51; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Taber, 244 U. S. 200, 201-202; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Sealy, 248 U. S. 363, 365; Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U. S. 454, 460; Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 249 U. S. 490, 493-494; cf. Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U. S. 492, 496.…
-
United States v. Ferger, 250 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1919)…How. 169; Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Co. v. United States, 237 U. S. 19, 26; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Harold, 241 U. S. 371, 378; Luckenbach v. McCahan Sugar Refining Co., 248 U. S. 139; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Sealy, 248 U. S. 363. That as instrumentalities of interstate commerce, bills of lading are the efficient means of credit resorted to for the purpose ' of securing and fructifying the flow of a vast volume of interstate commerce upon which the commercial intercourse of…
-
In re Greyling Realty Corp. Troutman v. Compton, 74 F.2d 734 (2d Cir. 1935)…isdiction of such court to the receiver or prior trustee so appointed. * * * ” In the absence of legislative provision, the mode of effecting service rests with the court, within the limitations of the authorities. Flexner v. Farson, 248 U. S. 289, 39 S. Ct. 97, 63 L. Ed. 250; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565. The mode and manner of effecting service was provided in the order of October 5, 1934, and afforded -the appellants reasonable opportunity to be heard, and service of that order was made…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boston and Maine Railroad v. Hooker, 233 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1914)
- Chicago v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1898)
- Pa. R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1903)
- Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1909)