Case ID: sc_78/html/0081-01.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

6640
    COOPER v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.
    Camiieu — Feeight—Constitutiostai, Law — -24 Stat., 81. — -Where the terminal carrier offers no evidence as to damage to interstate shipment of freight, the presumption is the damage occurred on its own line, and in such case the act, 24 stat., 81, does not contravene the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, and the carrier is liable for the penalty therein prescribed upon recovery of amount claimed.
    Before Memminger, J., Richland,
    December, 1906.
    Affirmed.
    Action by J. B. Cooper against Seaboard Air Line Railway. From judgment affirming judgment of magistrate court, defendant appeals.
    
      Messrs. U. L. Craig and Lyles & McMahan, for appellant,
    cite: One element of interstate commerce is transportationr 9 Wheat., 189; 17 Fncy., 62; 16 Pet., 539. The proviso does not relieve the burden on interstate commerce as damage to freight. Murphey v. Ga. Rd.: 75 S-. C., 276.
    
      Messrs. DePass & DePass, contra,
    cite: Doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality of statute: Cool. Con. Lim., 216; 12 Wheat., 213; 94 U. S., 113; 4 Dali., 14; 155 U. S., 461; 73 S. C., 71; 75 S. C., 276. Under facts here 
      
      presumption is loss occurred on line of terminal carrier: 66 S. C., 477; Hutch, on Car., 146, 152. Statute does not violate interstate commerce clause of U. S. Constitution, nor regulate such commerce: 93 U. S., 103; 94 U. S-, 164; 109 N. C., 279; 128 U. S., 1; 63 Ind., 552; 179 U. S,, 270; 169 U. S., 311, 133. It is a reasonable regulation: 176 U. S., 498; 17 Wall., 357; 174 U. S., 580; 169 U. S., 133, 311; 8 Cyc., 925; 16 Cyc., 934; 25 Sup. Ct. R., 218; 75 S. C., 276. Which the State has the power to make: Cool. Con. Rim., 715; 169 U. S., 613; 173 U. S., 299.
    September 6, 1907.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

In this action, brought in a magistrate court, plaintiff sought to recover of defendant $8.00 damages by breakage while in its possession to a shipment of a box of crockery ware from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Blaney, S. C., and $50.00 penalty for failure to adjust and pay the claim within ninety days after the filing thereof, as prescribed by the act of February 23, 1903, 24 Stat., 81. The first trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, which, on appeal to the Circuit Court, was set aside and the case remanded to the magistrate court for new trial because of error in the admission of testimony. On the second trial before the magistrate, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $58.00, and on appeal to the Circuit Court, this judgment was affirmed, from which defendant appealed to this Court on one exception, assigning error to the Circuit Court in holding the act of February 23, 1903, 24 Stat., 81, not violative of art. 1, sec. 8, clause 3, of the Constitution of the United States relating to interstate commerce.

On the trial before the magistrate court, defendant offered no testimony, and the only testimony offered by plaintiff was proof of damage by breakage to the goods received. There was a presumption, therefore, that the goods were damaged while in the possession of defendant, the terminal carrier. Willet v. Ry. Co., 66 S. C., 478; Walker v. Ry., 76 S. C., 309, and the finding of fact on this point by the Circuit Court is conclusive. This case, therefore, falls within the principle stated in Charles v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., ante, 36, which sustained the constitutionality of this statute as applied to carriers doing business in this State in whose possession goods were lost or damaged.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.