Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1915

Fickling v. Railway Company

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided March 13, 1915 · MR. JUSTICE HYDRICK.

84 S.E. 1008; 100 S.C. 227; 1915 S.C. LEXIS 72 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. J.H. Johnson , for appellant, Southern Ry. Co., submits: The commerce act of Congress as amended by the act of June 29th, 1906, is superior to, and exclusive of, State legislation as applied to interstate shipments, and renders null and void the penalty act of the State of South Carolina, now appearing as section 2573, volume I, Code of 1912 , and cites: 219 U.S. 185 ; 223 U.S. 1 ; 227 U.S. 59 ; 216 U.S. 122 ; 226 U.S. 491 ; 22 U.S. 424 . Messrs. Barron, McKay, Frierson Moffatt , for appellant, Southern Express Co., submit: So long as Congress has not acted upon a subject matter over which it is given exclusive control by the Constitution, it is within the power of the several States to pass laws which indirectly interfere with interstate commerce, if such laws are not intended directly to have that effect: 163 U.S. 299 ; 217 U.S. 524 ; 54 L.Ed. 868 ; 169 U.S. 133 ; 18 Sup. Ct. R. 289. When Congress does act, however, upon the precise subject matter, the statutes of the State must yield, even though they have been enacted under the police power, since the regulations of Congress are supreme: 158 U.S. 98 ; 15 Sup. Ct. R. 802; 222 U.S. 424 ; 56 L.Ed. 257 . Congress has enacted and, by the Carmack Amendment of June 29, 1906, has undertaken to regulate the entire matter of interstate transportation over the lines of connecting carriers: 219 U.S. 186 ; 55 L.Ed. 167 ; 226 U.S. 491 ; 57 L.Ed. 314 ; 61 So. Rep. 194, 197. "The duty to make prompt settlement for loss or damages to goods is but an incident of the duty to transport and deliver safely and with reasonable diligence:" 73 S.C. 73 ; 216 U.S. 122 ; 54 L.Ed. 411 , at page 417. The presumption that the terminal carrier of an interstate shipment damaged the goods has no application 131 S.W. 1187, 1188. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Atlantic C.L. R.R. Co. v. Mazursky, 216 U.S. 122 , 54 L.Ed. 411 , is not controlling in this action, for the reason that the cases involved in the Mazursky appeal arose prior to the taking effect of the Carmack Amendment, and because the passage of the amendment has superseded all State regulations relating to the same subject matter: 226 U.S. 491 ; 57 L.E. 314 . Even if the penalty statutes are constitutional and applicable, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the penalty upon the facts of the case. "This, being a penal statute, must be strictly construed:" 80 S.C. 527 ; 72 S.C. 479 . Messrs. A.H. Ninestein, W.E. Matthews and J.W. Vincent , for respondents.

Opinion of the Court

March 13, 1915. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The decision in each of the above entitled cases is governed by the decision of this Court in Varnville FurnitureCo. v. Ry., 98 S.C. 63, 79 S.E. 700.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE GAGE having heard these cases on Circuit did not participate in this decision.

NOTE. — The decision in Varnville Furniture Co. v. C. W.C. Ry. Co., 98 S.C. 63, 79 S.E. 700, was overruled by the United States Supreme Court on writ of error, on June 1st, 1915, see 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 715, and thereupon the Supreme Court made an order modifying the foregoing decision, in Preacher v. So. Express Co.: and adjudging *Page 229a that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, unless the plaintiff should, within twenty days after notice of the filing of the remittitur remit so much of the judgment as includes the penalty recovered, and upon the plaintiff entering such remittitur, that judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

The decision of the United States Supreme Court was as follows:

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.