Southern Ry. Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912)
U.S. Supreme Court
Southern Ry. Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912)Southern Railway Company v. Burlington Lumber Company
No. 236
Argued May 3, 1912
Decided May 27, 1912
225 U.S. 99
Syllabus
Decided on authority of Southern Railway Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, and Southern Railway Company v. Reid & Beam, 222 U. S. 444.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
U.S. Supreme Court
Southern Ry. Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912)Southern Railway Company v. Burlington Lumber Company
No. 236
Argued May 3, 1912
Decided May 27, 1912
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Syllabus
Decided on authority of Southern Railway Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, and Southern Railway Company v. Reid & Beam, 222 U. S. 444.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
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 R. Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, and Southern R. Co. v. Reid, 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 a 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.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.