William Dinsmore v. Southern Express Company, No. 136

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHarlan
Citation22 S.Ct. 45,46 L.Ed. 111,183 U.S. 115
Decision Date18 November 1901
Docket NumberNo. 136
PartiesWILLIAM B. DINSMORE and C. Gray Dinsmore, and William B. Dinsmore, C. Gray Dinsmore, and Dumont Clarke, as Executors and Trustees under the Will of William B. Dinsmore, Deceased, Petitioners , v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY, L. N. Trammell, Thomas C. Crenshaw, Jr., and Spencer R. Atkinson, Composing the Railroad Commission of the State of Georgia, et al

183 U.S. 115
22 S.Ct. 45
46 L.Ed. 111
WILLIAM B. DINSMORE and C. Gray Dinsmore, and William B. Dinsmore, C. Gray Dinsmore, and Dumont Clarke, as Executors and Trustees under the Will of William B. Dinsmore, Deceased, Petitioners,

v.

SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY, L. N. Trammell, Thomas C. Crenshaw, Jr., and Spencer R. Atkinson, Composing the Railroad Commission of the State of Georgia, et al.

No. 136.
Argued February 25, 1901.
Decided November 18, 1901.

Messrs. William K. Miller and Frank H. Miller for petitioners.

Page 116

Messrs. Joseph M. Terrell and Fleming G. duBignon for respondents.

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

William B. Dinsmore and others, citizens of New York,—some of them being executors and trustees under the will of the late William B. Dinsmore of that state,—brought this action on the 17th day of April, 1897, in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Georgia against the Southern Express Company, a corporation of Georgia having its principal place of business in that state, and also against L. N. Trammell, Thomas C. Crenshaw, and Spencer R. Atkinson, constituting the Railroad Commission of Georgia, and Joseph M. Terrell, Attorney General of Georgia, the individual defendants being citizens of Georgia.

The plaintiffs sued as owners and holders of shared of stock in the defendant express company, and sought a decree that would prevent the application by that corporation of any of its moneys to meet the requirement of the war revenue act of June 13th, 1898, chap. 448, in relation to adhesive stamps to be placed upon bills of lading, manifests, or other evidences of the receipt of goods for carriage or transportation.

The portion of that act to which the bill referred is the following:

'Express and Freight: It shall be the duty of every railroad or steamboat company, carrier, express company, or corporation, or person whose occupation is to act as such, to issue to the shipper or consignor, or his agent, or person from whom any goods are accepted for transportation, a bill of lading, manifest, or other evidence of receipt and forwarding for each shipment received for carriage and transportation, whether in bulk or in boxes, bales, packages, bundles, or not so inclosed or included; and there shall be duly attached and canceled, as is in this act provided, to each of said bills of lading, manifests, or other memorandum, and to each duplicate thereof, a stamp of

Page 117

the value of one cent: Provided, That but one bill of lading shall be required on bundles or packages of newspapers when inclosed in one general bundle at the time of shipment. Any failure to issue such bill of lading, manifest, or other memorandum, as herein provided, shall subject such railroad or steamboat company, carrier, express company, or corporation, or person to a penalty of fifty dollars for each offense, and no such bill of lading, manifest, or other memorandum shall be used in evidence unless it shall be duly stamped as aforesaid.' 30 Stat. at L. 448, 459, chap. 448.

After the passage of the above act complaint was made by citizens of Georgia to the railroad commission of that state to the effect that the defendant express company required shippers or consignors to supply the requisite stamps for bills of lading or receipts given to them. The commission thereupon, July 11th, 1898, ordered that the Southern Express Company appear before it on the 18th day of July, 1898, 'then and there to show cause, if any it can, why it should not be held to have violated the rules and regulations of this commission by the exactions or overcharges, as aforesaid, and why suit should not be instituted against it in every case of such overcharges for the recovery of the penalty provided by law for such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 30, 1965
    ...399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941); Carpenter v. Wabash Ry. Co., 309 U.S. 23, 60 S.Ct. 416, 84 L.Ed. 558 (1940); Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901); cf. Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 311 U.S. 538, 61 S.Ct. 347, 85 L.Ed. 327 II. The application o......
  • DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., HANGER-SILAS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 9, 1990
    ...must necessarily be applied prospectively because the dispute involves either injunctive relief, see Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 120, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901), or a permit for future action, see Ziffrin v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78, 63 S.Ct. 465, 468, 87......
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, No. 59
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • July 31, 1967
    ...S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941); Carpenter v. Wabash Ry., 309 U.S. 23, 60 S.Ct. 416, 84 L.Ed. 558 (1940); Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901); United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 109, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801) (Marshall, Ch. J.); cf. V......
  • De Rodulfa v. United States, No. 22947
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 24, 1972
    ...Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 201, 42 S.Ct. 72, 66 L.Ed. 189 (1921) (intervening statute); Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 119-121, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901) (intervening statute); United States v. Preston, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 57, 66-67, 7 L.Ed. 601 (1830) (interve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 30, 1965
    ...399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941); Carpenter v. Wabash Ry. Co., 309 U.S. 23, 60 S.Ct. 416, 84 L.Ed. 558 (1940); Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901); cf. Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 311 U.S. 538, 61 S.Ct. 347, 85 L.Ed. 327 II. The application o......
  • DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., HANGER-SILAS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 9, 1990
    ...must necessarily be applied prospectively because the dispute involves either injunctive relief, see Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 120, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901), or a permit for future action, see Ziffrin v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78, 63 S.Ct. 465, 468, 87......
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, No. 59
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • July 31, 1967
    ...S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941); Carpenter v. Wabash Ry., 309 U.S. 23, 60 S.Ct. 416, 84 L.Ed. 558 (1940); Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901); United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 109, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801) (Marshall, Ch. J.); cf. V......
  • De Rodulfa v. United States, No. 22947
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 24, 1972
    ...Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 201, 42 S.Ct. 72, 66 L.Ed. 189 (1921) (intervening statute); Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 119-121, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901) (intervening statute); United States v. Preston, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 57, 66-67, 7 L.Ed. 601 (1830) (interve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT