Southern Railway Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co.

Supreme Court

Southern Railway Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co.

225 U.S. 99, 32 S. Ct. 657, 56 L. Ed. 1001, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2072

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 27, 1912

Docket236

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 225 U.S. 99 (Southern Railway Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Railway Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99, 32 S. Ct. 657, 56 L. Ed. 1001, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2072 (1912).

Pincite

Opinion

*100 Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to recover penalties under a statute of North Carolina for refusal to. receive goods for shipment. As the statute is the same that was held bad, so far as it concerns commerce among the States, in Southern Railway Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, and Southern Railway Co v. Reid & Beam, 222 U. S. 444, a short statement will be enough. On January 26, 1907, the Burlington Lumber Company tendered to the Railway Company at Burlington, North Carolina, certain machinery for .shipment to Saginaw, Michigan, on á through bill of lading. Saginaw was not on the Railway Company’s line, the company had no rates to Saginaw and the agent had to delay in order to inquire of his superiors. The result was that the through bill of lading was not issued’.until April 3. The suit, as we have said', is for the penalty and nothing else.. The Supreme Court of the State decided against the Railway on the same ground that it did in the decisions already reversed.- In the circumstances it seems unnecessary to discuss the. case more at length.

Judgment reversed.

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

*100 Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to recover penalties under a statute of North Carolina for refusal to. receive goods for shipment. As the statute is the same that was held bad, so far as it concerns commerce among the States, in Southern Railway Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, and Southern Railway Co v. Reid & Beam, 222 U. S. 444, a short statement will be enough. On January 26, 1907, the Burlington Lumber Company tendered to the Railway Company at Burlington, North Carolina, certain machinery for .shipment to Saginaw, Michigan, on á through bill of lading. Saginaw was not on the Railway Company’s line, the company had no rates to Saginaw and the agent had to delay in order to inquire of his superiors. The result was that the through bill of lading was not issued’.until April 3. The suit, as we have said', is for the penalty and nothing else.. The Supreme Court of the State decided against the Railway on the same ground that it did in the decisions already reversed.- In the circumstances it seems unnecessary to discuss the. case more at length.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 U.S. 99, 32 S. Ct. 657, 56 L. Ed. 1001, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-burlington-lumber-co-scotus-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack