S. Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U.S. 134 (1905). · Go Syfert
Search
S. Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U.S. 134 (1905). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lindstrom v. Hanover Insurance (nj, 1994-12-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1906 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1906 1966 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lindstrom v. Hanover Insurance (2×)
N.J. · 1994 · confidence medium
They are instruments of government, and in construing them ‘the general purpose is a more important aid to the meaning than any rule which grammar or formal logic may lay down.’ ” United States v. Shirey, 359 U.S. 255, 260-61 , 79 S.Ct. 746, 749 , 3 L.Ed.2d 789, 793 (1959) (quoting United States v. Whitridge, 197 U.S. 135, 143 , 25 S.Ct. 406, 408 , 49 L.Ed. 696, 698 (1905)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore
Md. · 1987 · confidence medium
Or as Justice Holmes once put it, “the general purpose is a more important aid to the meaning than any rule which grammar or formal logic may lay down.” United States v. Whitridge, 197 U.S. 135, 143 , 25 S.Ct. 406, 408 , 49 L.Ed. 696, 698 (1905).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Glasgow
D.D.C. · 1975 · confidence medium
Justice Holmes shared this approach to statutory construction: “[T]he general purpose [of a statute] is a more important aid to the meaning than any rule which grammar or formal logic may lay down.” United States v. Whitridge, 197 U.S. 135, 143 , 25 S.Ct. 406, 408 , 49 L.Ed. 696, 698 (1905).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alvarez & Pascual, Inc. v. Secretary of the Treasury
prsupreme · 1962 · confidence medium
United States v. Whitridge, 197 U.S. 135, 143 ; 49 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vitelli v. United States
unknown court · 1916 · confidence medium
In the recent case of United States v. Whitridge ( 197 U. S., 135 , 25 Sup. Ct., 406, 49 L.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Stuart Steinberg (2×)
2d Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Whitridge, 197 U.S. 135, 143 , 25 S.Ct. 406 , 49 L.Ed. 696 (1905).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Grand Jury Subpoena of Alphonse Persico
2d Cir. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, e. g., United States v. Whitridge, 197 U.S. 135, 143 , 25 S.Ct. 406, 408 , 49 L.Ed. 696 (1905) (Holmes, J.); Borella v. Borden Co., 145 F.2d 63, 64-65 (2d Cir. 1945), aff’d, 325 U.S. 679 , 65 S.Ct. 1223 , 89 L.Ed. 1865 (1945) (Learned Hand, J.); United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch (6 U.S.) 358, 386, 2 L.Ed. 304 (1805) (Marshall, C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Southern Cotton Oil Company
v.
Texas
38.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 27, 1905.
197 U.S. 134
Mr. William V. Rome and Mr. R. 8. Lovett, with whom Mr. Ralph Oakley and Mr. James A. Baker were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.1, Mr. C. K. Bell, Attorney General of the State of Texas, for defendant in error.1
McKenna.
Published
Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the court.

The Southern Cotton Oil Company is a New Jersey corporation doing business in the State of Texas by virtue of a permit issued June 3, 1897, under the laws of the State. The object of this suit is to forfeit the permit of the company for the violation of the Anti-Trust Statutes of the State. The violation of the statutes alleged against it is the same as that alleged against the National Cotton Oil Company; the preceding case. The defenses are the same, and were presented by demurrer. The demurrer was overruled, and, the Southern Cotton Oil Company declining to plead further, judgment was entered forfeiting its permit to do business, in the State, except such as might be and constitute interstate commerce. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. A[*135] rehearing was denied, and a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the State refused. This writ of error was then sued out.

The questions are identical with those presented in the preceding case, and on its authority the judgment -of the Court of Civil Appeals is

Affirmed.