NORFOLK-SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
OWENS
Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the court.
This case comes here on writ of certiorari (251 U. S. 550) to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which affirmed (178 N. Car. 325) a judgment of $21 against the Norfolk-Southern Railroad Company in favor of Owens, a shipper. The amount was assessed under a statute of the State as a penalty for undue delay in making delivery of an intrastate'shipment made March 27, 1918. At that time the railroad was in the possession and control of the Government, and was being operated by the Director General under the Federal Control Act of March 21, 1918, c. 25, 40 Stat. 451. The only question presented for decision is whether the company was liable for the penalty. We are of opinion that it was not, for the reasons stated in Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ault, decided this day, ante, 554.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Commerce Fed. Sav. Bank v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 872 F.2d 1240 (6th Cir. 1989)…s lacked the authority to impose punitive fines or assessments upon an instrumentality of the United States, absent an express waiver of such immunity by Congress. Ault, 256 U.S. at 563-65, 41 S.Ct. at 597; accord Norfolk-Southern R.R. Co. v. Owens, 256 U.S. 565, 565, 41 S.Ct. 597, 598, 65 L.Ed. 1093 (1921); see also Smith v. Russellville Prod. Credit Ass’n, 777 F. 2d 1544, 1549 (11th Cir.1985) (“The established rule is that punitive damages cannot be recovered from the United States or its agencies.”); id.…1 / 2
-
S. Ry. Co. v. Kentucky, 284 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1932)…should have been assessed, to secure payment of the taxes,” and declared that the penalty is not one where the element of punishment predominates. Our decisions in Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, and Norfolk-Southern R. Co. v. Owens, 256 U. S. 565, cited by appellants do not apply here. The Judgment, as construed by the court of appeals, is a lien upon the railroad properties in respect of which the franchise taxes are collected but does not require payment of the taxes or penalty by the Dire…
-
Wabash Ry. Co. v. Elliott, 261 U.S. 457 (U.S. 1923)…nature that it could be applied to the Director General we need not consider, for there was no appeal from the judgment of the circuit court in his favor. See Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ault, pp. 563, et seq.; Norfolk-Southern R. R. Co. v. Owens, 256 U. S. 565. Judgment reversed. Nt also relied incidentally on the Act of August 29, 1916, c. 418, 39 Stat. 619, 645; the President’s Proclamation of December 26,1917, 40 Stat. 1733; - General Orders Nos. 18, 18a and 26 by the Director General of Railroads, U…