General Railway Signal Co v. Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission
Decision Date | 15 April 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 177,177 |
Parties | GENERAL RAILWAY SIGNAL CO. v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ex rel. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from page 500 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Hugh Satterlee and McGuire & Wood, all of Rochester, N. Y., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Council on pages 501-508 intentionally omitted] Mr. J. D. Hank, Jr., Atty. Gen., of Richmond, Va., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error seeks reversal of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (118 Va. 301, 87 S. E. 598) which affirmed an order of the Corporation Commission imposing a fine upon it for doing business within the state without first obtaining proper authority.
The essential facts concerning business done as found by the Commission and approved by Supreme Court are these:
'The defendant is a corporation of the state of New York, having an authorized capital of $5,000,000. Its principal office and factory is at Rochester, N. Y., where it owns and operates a large manufacturing plant devoted to the manufacture of materials chiefly used in the construction of railway signals which it sells and constructs all over the world. It has a branch factory at Montreal, Canada, and maintains branch offices in New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco.
'By contract dated the 5th day of May, 1914, with the Southern Railway Company, the defendant agreed to furnish certain materials, supplies, machinery, devices and equipment, as well as all necessary labor, and to install, erect, and put in place certain signals and apparatus shown on the plans described in the specifications, from Amherst to Whittles, Virginia, fifty-eight miles, and to 'complete the entire system and turn same over to the railway company as a finished job,' subject to inspection and acceptance, for $85,597. Similar contracts had been previously made and fully performed, one dated September 6, 1911, covering the lines of the Southern Railway in Virginia from Monroe to Montview, Virginia, 13 miles, for $16,015, and one dated July 18, 1913, from Orange to Seminary, Virginia, 76 miles, for $112,428. The aggregate distance in this state covered by these contracts being 147 miles, and the total consideration being $214,040.
'The purpose of these signals is to promote safety of railway operation and they operate automatically.
We think the recited facts clearly show local business separate and distinct from interstate commerce within the doctrine announced and applied in Browning v. Waycross, 233 U. S. 16, 34 Sup. Ct. 578, 58 L. Ed. 828.
It is further insisted that as the amount of prescribed entrance fee is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palmer v. Aeolian Co.
...578, 580, 58 L. Ed. 828; General Railway Signal Co. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 118 Va. 301, 87 S. E. 598, affirmed in 246 U. S. 500, 38 S. Ct. 360, 62 L. Ed. 854; Western Gas Const. Co. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 147 Va. 235, 136 S. E. 646, 55 A. L. R. 717, affirmed in 276 U. S. 597, 48......
-
United States v. Eason Oil Co.
...S. 16, 22, 34 S. Ct. 578, 58 L. Ed. 828; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, supra; General Railway Signal Co. v. Virginia, 246 U. S. 500, 38 S. Ct. 360, 62 L. Ed. 854; Hammer v. Dagenhart, supra; Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 249 U. S. 134, 15......
-
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle
...Ct. 99, 59 L. Ed. 265; Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. Stiles, 242 U. S. 111, 37 S. Ct. 58, 61 L. Ed. 176; General Ry. Signal Co. v. Virginia, 246 U. S. 500, 38 S. Ct. 360, 62 L. Ed. 854; Locomobile Co. of America v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 146, 38 S. Ct. 298, 62 L. Ed. 631. Plaintiff's case......
-
State v. Shell Pipe Line Corp., 36517.
...of their pipe line; Browning v. Waycross, 233 U.S. 22, 34 Sup. Ct. 578, 58 L. Ed. 832; General Railway v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 246 U.S. 500, 38 Sup. Ct. 360, 62 L. Ed. 858; Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon, 244 U.S. 68, 737 Sup. Ct. 599, 61 L. Ed. 1000; Fuller v. Allen, 46 Okla. 147, ......