Case ID: sc_82/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Jones.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

6987
    COLLETON MERCANTILE AND MANUFACTURING CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. CO.
    Carrier — Freight—Penalty—Constitutional Law — Presumptions.—•
    From delivery by a carrier in tMs State of a part of an interstate shipment, without explanation of the loss of a part thereof, the loss is presumed to have occurred on the terminal carrier, and the application of the penal statute, 24 Stat., 81, to such case does not contravene the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.
    Before Gage, J., Colleton, December, 1907.
    Affirmed.
    Action by Colleton Mercantile and Manufacturing Company against Atlantic Coast Dine Railroad Company. From Circuit judgment, affirming judgment of Magistrate J. E. Bryan, defendant appeals.
    
      Messrs. P. A. Willcox and J. B. Peurifoy, for appellant.
    
      Mr. Willcox cites: 91 U. S., 279; 163 U. S-, 142; 146 U. S., 122; 196 U. S-, 194.
    
      Mr. I. G. Padgett, contra,
    cites: 73 S'. C., 71, 140', 542; 78 S. C., 167.
    The opinion in this case was filed August 4, 1908, but remittitur held up on application for writ of error to United States Supreme Court. No action was taken, and the Reporter casually learned the case had been settled- and application for writ of error abandoned on
    January 8, 1909.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

The sole question presented in this case is whether the penalty statute of 1893 (24 St. at Large, p. 81) violates the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution in so far as it relates to the failure to adjust claim for loss' of freight shipped from a point in New York to Walterboro, in this State. A part of the single shipment of hats was delivered by defendant to plaintiff at destination, and in the absence of explanatory evidence the presumption is that the loss occurred while the goods were in possession of defendant. The statute was designed to effectuate an important public purpose, with respect to the duty of common carriers in this State, and the delict penalized occurred in this State. It has been several times decided that the statute in question does not interfere with interstate commerce. Charles v. Railway Co., 78 S. C., 36, 58 S. E., 927; Venning v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 78 S. C., 57, 58 S. E., 983, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1217; Von lehre v. A. C. L. R. Co., 78 S. C., 167, 168, 59 S. E., 1135.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.