MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
MCGREW COAL COMPANY
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by
Mr. Justice Brandeis.
In this action by a shipper brought under the long-and-short-haul statute of Missouri a judgment for the over charges entered by the trial court was affirmed by the highest court of the State.
The case comes here on writ of error, the railroad contending that the statute as construed violates rights secured to it by the Federal Constitution. The only federal question which was substantial and properly raised below was decided adversely to the railroad’s contention in Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. McGrew Coal Co., 244 U. S. 191, a case between the same parties and involving transactions precisely similar. The objection now made, that the shipper did not pay freight charges and, therefore, was not damaged, raised no substantial federal question but a question of state law which we have no jurisdiction to review. See Osborne v. Gray, 241 U. S. 16, 20.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1928)…xation for the local improvement, solely because they will not receive direct or exactly equal benefits, where no arbitrary and oppressive action is clearly and fully shown. See Miller & Lux v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist., 256 U. S. 129, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 404; Valley Farms Co. of Yonkers v. Westchester County, 261 U. S. 155, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist., 239 U. S. 254, 36 Sup. Ct. [*579] Rep. 58; Embree v. Kansas City & Liberty Boulevard Road Dist., 240 U. S. 242, 36 Sup. Ct…
-
Price v. City of ST. Petersburg, 158 Fla. 705 (Fla. 1947)…ng or destroying private rights, the recital in the act of the existence of such facts being necessary to enable the legislature to pass the law, is conclusive and binding, and cannot be traversed. But, the Court in Block v. Hirsh, 41 Sup. Ct. 458, 65 L. Ed. 864, in determining the 'existence of an emergency for the purpose of rent control stated that a legislative declaration by a legislature concerning public conditions, that by necessity and duty it must know, is entitled to great respect. That the legi…
-
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1927)…. 193, 200; Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Illinois, 175 U. S. 626, 633; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 248; Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291, 301; Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U. S. 112, 126. Missouri Pacific Railway v. Coal Co., 256 U. S. 134, 135. It is not eriough that thére may be somewhere hidden in the record a question which, if it had been raised, would have been of a federal nature. Dewey v. Des Moines, supra, 199; Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Illinois, supra, 634. And this ne…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Osborne v. Gray, 241 U.S. 16 (U.S. 1916)
- Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. McGrew Coal Co., 244 U.S. 191 (U.S. 1917)