Yazoo Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Jackson Vinegar Company, No. 57
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Van Devanter |
| Citation | 33 S.Ct. 40,57 L.Ed. 193,226 U.S. 217 |
| Parties | YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. JACKSON VINEGAR COMPANY |
| Docket Number | No. 57 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1912 |
v.
JACKSON VINEGAR COMPANY.
Messrs. Edward Mayes and Charles N. Burch for plaintiff in error.
Mr. William H. Watkins for defendant in error.
Page 218
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:
This was an action to recover damages from a railway company for the partial loss of a shipment of vinegar carried over the company's line from one point to another in the state of Mississippi. This case originated in a justice's court and was taken on appeal to the circuit court of Hinds county, where the plaintiff recovered a judgment for actual damages and $25 as a statutory penalty. That being the highest court in the state to which the case could be carried, it was then brought here. The position of the railway company, unsuccessfully taken in the state court and now renewed, is that the Mississippi statute providing for the penalty is repugnant to the due process of law and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The statute reads:
'Railroads, corporations, and individuals engaged as common carriers in this state are required to settle all claims for lost or damaged freight which has been lost or damaged between two given points on the same line or system, within sixty days from the filing or written notice of the loss or damage with the agent at the point of destination; and where freight is handled by two or more roads or systems of roads, and is lost or damaged, claims therefor shall be settled within ninety days from the filing of written notice thereof, with the agent by consignee at the point of destination. A common carrier failing to settle such claims as herein required shall be liable to the consignee for $25 damages in each case, in addition to actual damages, all of which may be recovered in the same suit: Provided that this section shall only apply when the amount claimed is $200 or less.' Laws 1908, 205, chap. 196.
The facts showing the application made of the statute
Page 219
are these: The plaintiff gave notice of its claim in the manner prescribed, placing its damages at $4.76, and, upon the railway company's failure to settle within sixty days, sued to recover that sum and the statutory penalty. Upon the trial the damages were assessed at the sum stated in the notice, and judgment was given therefor, with the penalty....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, Nos. 06–713
...a limiting construction to avoid constitutional questions. Cf. [128 S.Ct. 1191] Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217, 220, 33 S.Ct. 40, 57 L.Ed. 193 (1912) (“How the state court may apply [a statute] to other cases, whether its general words may be treated ......
-
People v. Rodriguez, No. B112980
...application" is not facially invalid].) This basic rule was established long ago in Yazoo & Miss. R.R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co. (1912) 226 U.S. 217, 219-220, 33 S.Ct. 40, 57 L.Ed. 193, [66 Cal.App.4th 167] when the court rejected a claim of facial unconstitutionality based upon hypothetical f......
-
LBS v. LMS
...conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid."); Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R.R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217, 33 S.Ct. 40, 57 L.Ed. 193 (1912) (overly broad statute may be upheld as applied to a given case, despite its potential unconstitutionality a......
-
State v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Nos. 19-267(L)
...to statute as applied to plaintiff before considering other applications); Yazoo & Miss. Valley R.R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co. , 226 U.S. 217, 219–20, 33 S.Ct. 40, 57 L.Ed. 193 (1912) (upholding statute as applied to instant case without speculating as to how it might apply in other circum......
-
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, Nos. 06–713
...a limiting construction to avoid constitutional questions. Cf. [128 S.Ct. 1191] Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217, 220, 33 S.Ct. 40, 57 L.Ed. 193 (1912) (“How the state court may apply [a statute] to other cases, whether its general words may be treated ......
-
People v. Rodriguez, No. B112980
...application" is not facially invalid].) This basic rule was established long ago in Yazoo & Miss. R.R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co. (1912) 226 U.S. 217, 219-220, 33 S.Ct. 40, 57 L.Ed. 193, [66 Cal.App.4th 167] when the court rejected a claim of facial unconstitutionality based upon hypothetical f......
-
LBS v. LMS
...conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid."); Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R.R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217, 33 S.Ct. 40, 57 L.Ed. 193 (1912) (overly broad statute may be upheld as applied to a given case, despite its potential unconstitutionality a......
-
State v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Nos. 19-267(L)
...to statute as applied to plaintiff before considering other applications); Yazoo & Miss. Valley R.R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co. , 226 U.S. 217, 219–20, 33 S.Ct. 40, 57 L.Ed. 193 (1912) (upholding statute as applied to instant case without speculating as to how it might apply in other circum......