Paul Heymann v. Southern Railway Company

• Decision Date: 03 December 1906
• Docket Number: No. 32,32
• Citation: 51 L.Ed. 178,203 U.S. 270,27 S.Ct. 104,7 Ann.Cas. 1130
• Parties: PAUL HEYMANN, Plff. in Err., v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

203 U.S. 270

27 S.Ct. 104

51 L.Ed. 178

PAUL HEYMANN, Plff. in Err.,

v SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

No. 32.

Submitted October 17, 1906.

Decided December 3, 1906.

Messrs Milton Strasburger and Samuel H. Myers for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Joseph B. Cumming for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

In March, 1902, P. B. Wise and H. D. Harkins, residents of Charleston, South Carolina, each ordered a cask of whisky from Paul Heymann, a wholesale liquor dealer in Augusta, Georgia. The price of the whisky accompanied the orders, which were given upon the understanding that if, for any cause, delivery was not made to the consignees, the purchase price would be refunded.

The two casks of whisky, consigned to the respective purchasers at Charleston, were delivered to the Southern Railway Company at Augusta. In due course the packages of liquor reached Charleston, and were by the railroad company at once unloaded into its warehouse, ready for delivery. The record does not show that the consignees were notified of the arrival of the goods. Shortly after the goods were so placed in the warehouse of the railroad company they were seized and taken from its possession. The seizures were made without any warrant or other process, by constables asserting their right to do so under the authority of what is known as the dispensary law of South Carolina, which law was considered in Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co. 170 U. S. 438, 42 L. ed. 1100, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 674. The agent of the railroad company did not resist the seizure.

Thereafter, Heymann, the consignor, sued the railroad company for failing to make the deliveries as contracted in the bills of lading, and in the superior court of Richmond county, on appeal from a justice's court, obtained a verdict and judgment. The cause was appealed to the supreme court of Georgia, and by that court the judgment was reversed and the case remanded. 118 Ga. 616, 45 S. E. 491. On the second trial the defendant had a verdict and judgment; and on appeal the judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of Georgia upon the authority of its previous opinion. The case was then brought here.

The act of Congress of August 8, 1890 [26 Stat. at L. 313, chap. 728, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3177], commonly known as the Wilson act, provides that all intoxicating liquors 'transported into any state or territory, or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall, upon arrival in such state or territory, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such state or territory, enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such state or territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.'

The supreme court of Georgia held—although the goods had not been delivered to the consignees, and although there was no showing of notice to them from the carrier, or even if notice by the local law was unnecessary, of the lapse of a reasonable time for the consignees to call for and accept delivery—that the interstate transportation of the goods ended when they were placed in the warehouse, and the carrier was thenceforward liable only as a warehouseman, and that the goods ceased to be under the shelter of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. This was based upon the conclusion that goods warehoused under the circumstances stated must be considered as having arrived, within the meaning of the wilson act, and therefore the packages of liquor in question were lawfully seized because subject to the police authority of the state of South Carolina. The meaning thus affixed to the word 'arrival,' as employed in the Wilson act, was adopted after consideration of the opinion in Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, 42 L. ed. 1088, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 664. While it was conceeded by the learned court that language contained in the opinion in that case indicated that this court deemed delivery essential to constitute 'arrival' within the Wilson act, yet, the expressions in the opinion to that effect were not binding, as they were merely obiter, since the Rhodes Case was only concerned with whether goods had come under the state authority on reaching their place of destination and before they had been warehoused by the carrier.

We cannot concur in the view taken by the learned court of the decision in the Rhodes Case. In that case a railroad employee at a town in Iowa was indicted under the law of that state because, after an interstate shipment of liquors had reached the depot of the final carrier, at the point of destination, he moved the package from the platform, where it had been placed on being unloaded, to a freight warehouse belonging to the railroad company, a few feet away. It was insisted on behalf of the state of Iowa that the effect of the Wilson act was to confer upon that state the power to subject to state regulations merchandise shipped from another state the moment it reached the boundary line of the state of Iowa. On the other hand, it was contended that an interstate shipment of liquor did not arrive within that state within the meaning of the Wilson act until the consummation of the shipment by delivery at its destination to the consignee. The case, therefore, necessarily involved deciding the meaning of the word 'arrival' in the Wilson act, and this required an ascertainment of when goods shipped from one state to another, generally speaking, ceased to be controlled by the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and how far the general rule resulting from the power of Congress to regulate commerce had been limited, if at all, by the provisions of the Wilson act. Considering the first question, the elementary and long-settled doctrine was reiterated that delivery and sale in the original package was necessary to terminate interstate commerce, so far as the police regulations of the states were concerned. In passing upon the second question the court, referring to a previous case involving the Wilson law (Re Rahrer [Wilkerson v. Rahrer] 140 U. S. 545, 35 L. ed. 572, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865), pointed out that the contention which was made in that case, that the Wilson act was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States because it was an abdication by Congress of its power to regulate commerce was held to be untenable, because the Wilson act was simply legislation by Congress creating a uniform rule applicable to all the states, by which liquor, when the subject of interstate commerce, could come under the power of a state at an earlier date than it otherwise would have done. Contemplating the grounds of the previous ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Wilson act, and coming to precisely determine the meaning of the word 'arrival' as used in that act, it was said in the Rhodes Case (p. 426, L. ed. p. 1096, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 669):

'Interpreting the statute by the light of all its provisions, it was not intended to and did not cause...