United States v. Erie Co
| Decision Date | 25 November 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 30,30 |
| Citation | 280 U.S. 98,74 L.Ed. 187,50 S.Ct. 51 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES et al. v. ERIE R. CO. et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Messrs. Edward M. Reidy and Daniel W. Knowlton, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. Marion B. Pierce, of New York City, for appellees.
Upon complaint of Hamersley Manufacturing Company, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued an order that the Erie Railroad Company and a connecting carrier establish an all-rail rate of 10 cents per 100 pounds on wood pulp imported through the port of Hoboken, N. J., and shipped from there to Garfield, N. J., in carloads. Hamersley Mfg. Co. v. Erie R. R. Co., 126 I. C. C. 491; Id., 148 I. C. C. 47. The carriers brought this suit in the federal court for that state to enjoin enforcement of the order and to set it aside. The District Court granted the relief. Erie R. Co. v. United States, 32 F.(2d) 613. The case is here on direct appeal under Act of October 22, 1913, c. 32, 38 Stat. 208, 220 (28 USCA §§ 47, 47a), and Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938, section 238 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 345). The sole ground for the carriers' attack on the order, and also the sole ground for the decree below, is that the shipments are wholly intrastate, and therefore the commission lacked jurisdiction over the rates.
The commission found the following facts concerning the course of the business involved: The Hamersley Company makes to a New York broker, who is a commission agent for specified foreign mills, its offer to buy a certain quantity and grade of pulp manufactured abroad. The broker cables the offer to one of the foreign mills which he represents, naming the prospective purchaser. If the offer is accepted, the broker so informs the company and then makes a contract with it in his own name, sending a copy to the mill. The contract provides for shipment from abroad during a specified period and delivery, at the agreed price, on dock New York Harbor. The mill is not named in the contract. It ships to the broker the ordered quantities marked with a brand, but not so as to show the individual customer, and cables the broker when the shipment is made, naming the steamer, the quantity, the customers, and the date of expected arrival. This information is communicated by the broker to the company. It appears from the record that the broker pays the mill as soon as he is thus advised of the shipment, and that the ship's bill of lading is sent to him.
The pulp destined for the company may be part of a larger shipment. But the number of bales allotted to it are always delivered at Garfield; none may be diverted to any other customer; and no pulp is shipped to the broker for sale to purchasers, to be obtained while the pulp is in transit or after its arrival. Upon arrival of the pulp in Holboken, the broker gives to a terminal company the dock orders, specifying delivery of the required number of bales, and makes out the bills of lading for shipment from there to Garfield. These papers name the ship by which the pulp arrived at the Hoboken dock. There may be some delay in forwarding the wood pulp by rail after delivery on the dock, because, under an arrangement between the broker and the company, the pulp is shipped...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Board of Equalization v. Blind Bull Coal Co.
... ... As ... to what constitutes commerce is defined by numerous cases ... Comm. v. Pacific States Association, 273 U.S. 52; ... Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238; ... Krueger v. Acme ... commerce. 11 Amer. Jur. 65; United States v ... Simpson, 252 U.S. 465. The passing of title does not ... affect the question. East Ohio Company v ... Commission, 283 U.S. 465; U. S. v. Erie Railroad ... Company, 280 U.S. 98; Company v. Minnesota, 272 ... U.S. 469; Natural Gas Co. v ... ...
-
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hoover
...time of the shipment, and ascertained from all of the circumstances attending the transportation. See United States v. Erie R.R. Co., 280 U.S. 98, 102, 50 S.Ct. 51, 53, 74 L.Ed. 187 (1929). See generally Swift Textiles, 799 F.2d at 700-01 (noting that an "`intent' inquiry ... underlies all ......
-
Sompo Japan Ins. v. Union Pacific
...of lading nor by when and to whom title passes but rather by `the essential character of the commerce,' United States v. Erie R.R. Co., 280 U.S. 98, 102, 50 S.Ct. 51, 74 L.Ed. 187 (1929), reflected by the `intention formed prior to shipment, pursuant to which property is carried to a select......
-
Walling v. Mutual Wholesale Food & Supply Co.
...a substantial amount of hauling of interstate merchandise within a week7 are engaged in interstate commerce (United States v. Erie R. Co., 280 U.S. 98, 50 S.Ct. 51, 74 L.Ed. 187; Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Settle, 260 U.S. 166, 43 S.Ct. 28, 67 L.Ed. 189; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Hancock, 25......
-
Kawasaki v. Regal-Beloit: the Supreme Court resolves the long-standing circuit split regarding the law applicable to multimodal shipping contracts.
...(16) 339 U.S. 113 (1950) (17) Id. at 115. (18) Id. at 117. (19) Id. (20) Id. at 118. (21) Swift, 799 F.2d at 701. (22) Id. at 700. (23) 280 U.S. 98 (24) Swift, 799 F.2d at 701. (25) Id. Interestingly enough, the court found the fact that the inland portion of the shipment was covered by a s......