316 U.S. 350 (1942), 903, Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

Docket Nº:No. 903
Citation:316 U.S. 350, 62 S.Ct. 1171, 86 L.Ed. 1525
Party Name:Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
Case Date:May 25, 1942
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 350

316 U.S. 350 (1942)

62 S.Ct. 1171, 86 L.Ed. 1525

Peyton

v.

Railway Express Agency, Inc.

No. 903

United States Supreme Court

May 25, 1942

Submitted May 1, 1942

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. A suit against a single interstate carrier to recover damages resulting from a negligent failure to deliver a package shipped interstate by express is a suit arising under a law regulating commerce, viz., under the Carmack Amendment, as amended -- of which the District Court has jurisdiction irrespective of the amount involved. Jud.Code § 24(8). P. 352.

2. Whether a suit arises under a law of the United States must appear from the plaintiff's pleading, not the defenses which may be interposed to, or be anticipated by, it. A pleading that adequately discloses a present controversy dependent for its outcome upon the construction of a federal statute satisfies this requirement. P. 353.

14 F.2d 430 reversed.

Certiorari, 315 U.S. 793, to review a judgment sustaining a dismissal by the District Court for want of jurisdiction of an action against the express company for nondelivery.

Per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner brought this suit in the District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that respondent, known to be an interstate carrier, had negligently failed to deliver to the addressee in California a package shipped from Waco, Texas, and claiming damages in the sum of $750,000. The trial court ordered petitioner to attach to his complaint a copy of the express receipt which he received

Page 351

upon delivering the package to respondent. This receipt contained a $50 valuation. Thereupon the court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the amount in controversy was less than the $3,000 necessary to sustain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 41(1), Jud.Code § 24(1). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. We granted certiorari to inquire whether the suit could be maintained under 28 U.S.C. § 41(8), Jud.Code § 24(8), granting the district courts jurisdiction "Of [62 S.Ct. 1172] all suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce," irrespective of the amount involved.

The pertinent act of Congress is 49 U.S.C. § 20(11), originally the Carmack Amendment of 1906, 34 Stat. 593, since amended several times...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP