St Louis, Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. State of Arkansas
Citation | 36 S.Ct. 443,240 U.S. 518,60 L.Ed. 776 |
Decision Date | 03 April 1916 |
Docket Number | No. 302,302 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN, & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF ARKANSAS |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Robert E. Wiley, Edgar B. Kinsworthy, and Edward J. White for plainin error.
Messrs. Henry M. Armistead, Ashley Cockrill, Hamilton Moses, W. D. Jackson, Gus K. Jones, and Mr. Wallace Davis, Attorney General of Arkansas, for defendant in error.
An act of the state of Arkansas, entitled, 'An Act for the Better Protection and Safety of the Public,' provides as follows:
The railroad company violated the terms of the statute for a day in the city of Hot Springs, and, being convicted thereof, was sentenced to pay the minimum fine imposed by the statute. The judgment which was entered upon the sentence was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. This writ of error was then granted.
The railroad company contends that the statute violates (1) the due process and equality clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, (2) that it operates as an interference with interstate commerce, and (3) prevents a contest of its validity by the excess of its penalties. Of the last ground it may be immediately said that it is without merit.
The other grounds are in effect disposed of by prior decisions.
In the case of Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, 55 L. ed. 290, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 275, a statute of Arkansas was considered which required freight trains to be equipped with crews consisting of an engineer, a foreman, a conductor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Francis Wilson v. Alexander New
...& O. R. Co. v. Conley, 230 U. S. 513, 522-524, 57 L. ed. 1597, 1603, 1604, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 985; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518, 60 L. ed. 776, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 443. 10 United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 417, 53 L. ed. 836, 852, 29 ......
-
Louisville Gas Electric Co v. Coleman
...Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, 31 S. Ct. 275, 55 L. Ed. 290; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518, 520, 36 S. Ct. 443, 60 L. Ed. 776. An inspection law which applied to mines employing 6 or more men, but not to those employing 5 o......
-
South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros
...S.Ct. 418, 41 L.Ed. 853; Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453, 31 S.Ct. 275, 55 L.Ed. 290; St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U.S. 518, 36 S.Ct. 443, 60 L.Ed. 776; cf. Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299, 16 S.Ct. 1086, 41 L.Ed. 166, an unnecessarily harsh restriction......
-
Southern Pac Co v. State of Arizona Sullivan
...crews, Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State of Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453, 31 S.Ct. 275, 55 L.Ed. 290; St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. State of Arkansas, 240 U.S. 518, 36 S.Ct. 443, 60 L.Ed. 776; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Norwood, 283 U.S. 249, 51 S.Ct. 458, 75 L.Ed. 1010; and for the equipment of f......
-
The Supreme Court and Interstate Barriers
...306 U. S. 79.25 South Carolina Highway Department v.Barnwell Bros., 303 U. S. 177.26 St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. Co. v.Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518; cf. Seaboard AirLine Ry. v. Blackwell, 244 U. S. 310.27 Munn v. Illinois, supra note 18; also 94U. S. 155, 164, 179, 180, 181.28 Mentz v. Baldwin......