Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. McGrew Coal Co., 256 U.S. 134 (1921)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. McGrew Coal Co., 256 U.S. 134 (1921)Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. McGrew Coal Company
No. 265
Argued March 1, 1921
Decided April 11, 1921
256 U.S. 134
Syllabus
1. The Missouri long and-hort haul statute is constitutional. P. 256 U. S. 135. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. McGrew Coal Co., 244 U. S. 191.
2. Whether, under the statute, a shipper may recover overcharges which he did not himself pay is a question of state law. P. 256 U. S. 135.
280 Mo. 466 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Opinions
U.S. Supreme Court
Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. McGrew Coal Co., 256 U.S. 134 (1921) Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. McGrew Coal Company No. 265 Argued March 1, 1921 Decided April 11, 1921 256 U.S. 134 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. The Missouri long and-hort haul statute is constitutional. P. 256 U. S. 135. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. McGrew Coal Co., 244 U. S. 191. 2. Whether, under the statute, a shipper may recover overcharges which he did not himself pay is a question of state law. P. 256 U. S. 135. 280 Mo. 466 affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. 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 overcharges Page 256 U. S. 135 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.
Search This Case