From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spence v. Railway Company

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 12, 1915
101 S.C. 436 (S.C. 1915)

Opinion

9157

August 12, 1915.

Before MOORE, J., Chester, July, 1914. Reversed nisi.

Action by William Spence against Southern Railway Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Messrs. J.L. Hemphill and B.L. Abney, for appellant, submit: Remedies provided by act of Congress exclusive: 74 S.C. 981; 112 Fed. 823; 15 I.C.C. 37; Barnes' Transportation 608; 226 U.S. 491; 98 S.C. 470.

Messrs. Marion Marion, for respondent, submit: Exception too general: 48 S.C. 323; 46 S.C. 17; 49 S.C. 304; 88 S.C. 80; 63 S.C. 529; 78 S.C. 519; 65 S.C. 242. No conflict between State and Federal statutes: 222 U.S. 436; 98 S.C. 63; 225 U.S. 501; 187 U.S. 148.


August 12, 1915. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


Plaintiff recovered judgment in a magistrate's Court for $6.20, an admitted overcharge in the rate on an interstate shipment, and $50.00, the penalty provided by statute (Civil Code 1912, vol. I, sec. 2573) for failure to pay the claim therefor within the time prescribed. The Circuit Court affirmed the judgment.

Since the trial on Circuit the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the penalty statute is void as applied to interstate commerce. Charleston W.C. Ry. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U.S. 597; 35 Sup. Ct. 715; 100 S.C. 227a. The penalty must, therefore, be remitted. If this is done within twenty days after notice of the filing of the remittitur, the judgment will stand affirmed; otherwise a new trial is ordered.

Reversed nisi.


Summaries of

Spence v. Railway Company

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 12, 1915
101 S.C. 436 (S.C. 1915)
Case details for

Spence v. Railway Company

Case Details

Full title:SPENCE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Aug 12, 1915

Citations

101 S.C. 436 (S.C. 1915)
85 S.E. 1058

Citing Cases

Spence v. Southern Railway Co.

"The penalty must, therefore, be remitted. If this is done within 20 days after notice of the filing of the…

Kristianson v. American Ry. Exp. Co.

Action by Hanna R. Kristianson, doing business as Krystal Optical Co. against The American Railway Express…