Southern Express Co. v. Whittle
Citation | 69 So. 652,194 Ala. 406 |
Decision Date | 17 June 1915 |
Docket Number | 169 |
Parties | SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. v. WHITTLE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1915
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Gaston Gunter, Judge.
Suit by J.E. Whittle against the Southern Express Company. From a decree granting relief, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered, dismissing the bill.
William L. Martin, Atty. Gen. (Samuel D. Weakley, of Birmingham, and Lindsay Rogers, of counsel), for appellant.
Weil Stakely & Vardaman, of Montgomery, and Lawrence Maxwell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.
The complainant, Whittle, filed this bill against the Southern Express Company to compel it to receive at and transport from Pensacola, Fla., to Ramer, Ala., a shipment of intoxicating liquors, viz., whisky, consisting of six quarts. Whittle was and is engaged in the liquor business in Pensacola, and having received an order, accompanied by the requisite cash price, from Fletcher Farmer, who resides at Ramer, Ala., and who was one of Whittle's customers, for the six quarts of whisky mentioned, tendered the shipment to the common carrier at Pensacola, Fla., for transportation to the consignee at Ramer, Ala. The carrier refused to accept the shipment of six quarts of whisky, assigning as the only reason for its refusal thereof that the law of Alabama forbade the carrier's transportation and delivery to one consignee at a point in "dry territory" in the state of Alabama of more than one quart of whisky in any four consecutive weeks, even though the shipment is tendered in another state for transportation and delivery to a consignee in "dry territory" in the state of Alabama. Ramer, where the carrier has an office, is in "dry territory" in the state of Alabama. It is conceded, as upon the averments of the bill, that the shipment of whisky, tendered to the carrier as stated, was only intended for the personal use of Farmer (consignee), and for the use of his family, and not otherwise. The carrier's refusal was based upon an enactment commonly called the "Bonner Anti-Shipping Bill," which became effective in Alabama on February 8 1915, entitled, "An act to further promote temperance and suppress the evils of intemperance, and to restrict the consumption of spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors in this state. ***" The following presently pertinent sections of that law may be appropriately set out at this point:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marasso v. Van Pelt
...... police powers of the state' in the premises. An express. command to exercise one power does not by implication. abrogate other police powers, ... [81 So. 532] . State ex rel. Germain v. Ross (N. D.) 170 N.W. 121;. Brennen v. Southern Exp. Co., 106 S.C. 102, 90 S.E. 402; State v. Carpenter (N. C.) 92 S.E. 373;. City of Seattle ...Brown (S. D.) 167 N.W. 400; Fitch v. State (Neb.) 167 N.W. 417; Southern Exp. Co. v. Whittle, 194 Ala. 406, 69 So. 652, L. R. A. 1916C, 278;. People v. Blanchard, 105 Misc. 401, 174 N.Y.S. ......
-
Lakes v. Goodloe
...... 1006, L.R.A. 1918A, 942; Barbour v. State, 146 Ga. 667, 92 S.E. 70, 2 A.L.R. 1095; Southern Expo. Co. v. Whittle, 194 Ala. 406, 69 So. 652, L.R.A. 1916C, 278;. Brennen v. Southern Expo., ......
-
Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas
...this way. See Evansville Brewing Assn. v. Excise Comm’n of Jefferson Cty. , Ala., 225 F. 204 (N.D. Ala. 1915) ; Southern Express Co. v. Whittle , 194 Ala. 406, 69 So. 652 (1915) ; Brennen v. Southern Express Co. , 106 S.C. 102, 90 S.E. 402 (1916) ; Charleston & W. C. R. Co. v. Gosnell , 106......
-
Ex Parte Francis
......449, 8 S.W. 480; Titsworth v. State, 2 Okl. Cr. 268, 101 P. 288; Adams Express Co. v. Commonwealth, 154 Ky. 462, 157 S.W. 908, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 342; Commonwealth v. ...385, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 104); and. interstate commerce is not unlawfully involved. See. Southern Express Co. v. Whittle, 194 Ala. 406, 69. So. 652, L. R. A. 1916C, 278; Southern Express Co. v. ......