Contract Cartage Co. v. Sawyer

Sixth Circuit

Contract Cartage Co. v. Sawyer

54 F.2d 632, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4000

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 1931

DocketNo. 5805

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 F.2d 632 (Contract Cartage Co. v. Sawyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Contract Cartage Co. v. Sawyer, 54 F.2d 632, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4000 (6th Cir. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a Michigan corporation, is a private carrier engaged in transporting automobiles from manufacturers in Detroit to points beyond the state of Michigan. Its method is to transport automobiles upon motor trucks. For this purpose it used a combination truck and semitrailer known as type “A.”

Appellees, county officers of Ohio, charged with the enforcement of its traffic laws, refused to grant appellant permits to use its type A vehicles on the ground that the operation of such vehicles upon intercounty highways and main market roads of the state was in violation of section 7248-2 of the General Code. Thereupon appellant filed its bill in the District Court assailing the constitutionality of the statute and seeking to enjoin appellees from attempting to enforce it. The District Court dismissed the bill.

After the record upon appeal was filed in this court, the General Assembly of Ohio repealed section 7248-2 of the General Code (114 Ohio Laws, p. 158) and by appropriate legislation legalized the use of plaintiffs type A vehicle. We are of the opinion therefore, on the authority of Dinsmore v. Sou. Exp. Co., 183 U. S. 115, 22 S. Ct. 45, 46 L. Ed. 111; Lewis Pub. Co. v. Wyman, 228 U. S. 610, 33 S. Ct. 599, 57 L. Ed. 989, and Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 37 S. Ct. 208, 61 L. Ed. 441, that no actual controversy now remains for our consideration, and as the decree dismissing the bill is appropriate upon the ground herein indicated, the same is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a Michigan corporation, is a private carrier engaged in transporting automobiles from manufacturers in Detroit to points beyond the state of Michigan. Its method is to transport automobiles upon motor trucks. For this purpose it used a combination truck and semitrailer known as type “A.”

Appellees, county officers of Ohio, charged with the enforcement of its traffic laws, refused to grant appellant permits to use its type A vehicles on the ground that the operation of such vehicles upon intercounty highways and main market roads of the state was in violation of section 7248-2 of the General Code. Thereupon appellant filed its bill in the District Court assailing the constitutionality of the statute and seeking to enjoin appellees from attempting to enforce it. The District Court dismissed the bill.

After the record upon appeal was filed in this court, the General Assembly of Ohio repealed section 7248-2 of the General Code (114 Ohio Laws, p. 158) and by appropriate legislation legalized the use of plaintiffs type A vehicle. We are of the opinion therefore, on the authority of Dinsmore v. Sou. Exp. Co., 183 U. S. 115, 22 S. Ct. 45, 46 L. Ed. 111; Lewis Pub. Co. v. Wyman, 228 U. S. 610, 33 S. Ct. 599, 57 L. Ed. 989, and Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 37 S. Ct. 208, 61 L. Ed. 441, that no actual controversy now remains for our consideration, and as the decree dismissing the bill is appropriate upon the ground herein indicated, the same is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 F.2d 632, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contract-cartage-co-v-sawyer-ca6-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack