Supreme Court of the United States, 1912

Southern Railway Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 27, 1912 · Holmes

225 U.S. 99; 32 S. Ct. 657; 56 L. Ed. 1001; 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2072 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. John K. Graves, with whom Mr. Alfred P. Thom was on the brief, for plaintiff in error., No appearance for defendant in error on the argument. Mr. W. H. Carroll and Mr. Lee S. Overman subsequently filed a brief for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

People of Porto Rico v. American R. (1st Cir. 1918)
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hayes (Ind. 1913)
West India & Panama Telegraph Co. v. Public Service Commission (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1918)
Jeans v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. (N.C. 1913)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

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