S. Ry. Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912). · Go Syfert
S. Ry. Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Southern Railway Company
v.
Burlington Lumber Company
236.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 27, 1912.
Published opinion
225 U.S. 99
1912 U.S. LEXIS 2072
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.
Holmes.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
[*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.