It was chiefly urged for error on the part of the defendant that the State legislation in question,'imposing-certain penalties for alleged default on the part of defendant, is unconstitutional, (1) in denying said defendant the equal protection of the law, contrary to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of' the United States; (2) in imposing unlawful burdens and restrictions upon Interstate Commerce, contrary to Article I, sec. 8, of said Constitution.

The questions thus raised have been recently presented in several cases on appeal before this Court, and have been decided adversely to defendant’s position, notably, in Efland v. Railroad (defendant’s appeal), 146 N. C., 135; Morris & Co. v. Express Co., 146 N. C., 167; Harrill v. Railroad, 144 N. C., 540; Cottrell v. Railroad, 141 N. C., 383.

The constitutionality of these penalty statutes was so fully discussed-in those cases that the Court does not consider that further statement on the subject is required. For the reasons given in those opinions, and on the authorities there cited, the exceptions of defendant are overruled and the judgment below

Affirmed.