Case Name: MEETZE v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1912-05-03
Citations: 91 S.C. 379
Docket Number: 8201
Parties: MEETZE v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 379–384

Head Matter:
8201
MEETZE v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO.
Carrier.—Freight—'Express Companies—Interstate Shipments.—Federal Statutes.—The Act op 1910, 36 Stats., 717, amending section 1710 of Code of 1903, and providing a penalty for failure of initial carrier to inform1 interested parties when, where and by what connecting carrier an interstate shipment was damaged or lost is suspended by the Federal statute of 1906 known as the “Carmack amendment” (Supplement U. ,S. Statutes, 1909, 1166), which provides that in such cases the initial carrier is liable in cases of loss or damage in an interstate shipment.
Me. Justice Woods thinks this case does not require an expression of opinion as to whether the State statute is not of force so far as it relates to terminal and intermediate carriers.
Me. Justice Hydrick, with whom concurs Mr. Justice Watts, thinks the State statute in requiring the initial carrier to give certain information does not conflict with the Federal statute as this subject is not covered by that statute.
Before Wieson, J., Richland, November, 1911.
Reversed.
Action' by C. E. Meetze against Southern Express Company in court of Magistrate J. H. Fowles. From Circuit •order, affirming magistrate’s judgment, defendant appeals.
Messrs. Barron, Moore, Barron & McKay, J. Nelson .Frierson, for appellant,
cite: The evidence as to negligence Joeing in writing this issue is reviewable here: 70 S. C. 178, 554; 87 S. C. 267; 86 S. C. 510; 81 S. C. 4-61. Refusal ■of magistrate to grant continuance is abuse of discretion: 39 S. C. 339; 29 S. C. 87; 82 S. C. 236. The act of ipio ■if applied to interstate shipments is unconstitutional: 163 U. S. 299; 217 U. S. 524; 158 U. S. 98; 196 U. S. 194; :219 U. S. 186; 55 U. S. 180. Exacting a penalty under this statute deprives defendant of his property without due process: 75 S. C. 276; 169 U. S. 133, 311; 78 S. C. 42; 31 \. R. A. (N. S.) 1; 61 W. Va. 616; 219 U. S. 186.
Messrs. Rembert & Monteith, contra.
Oral argument.
May 3, 1912.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered 'by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
This is an action by the plaintiff for "the sum of fifty dollars, penalty for failing to trace •and inform in regard to package shipped over defendant's line on December 15, 1910." Judgment was obtained for the loss of the package and a subsequent action was brought for the penalty under the act of the General Assembly of South Carolina, 1910, page 717.
The action was 'brought in the magistrate's court, where judgment for the penalty was obtained. The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court sustained the magistrate, and the defendant again appealed to this Court.
Mrs. C. E. Meetze lives in Columbia, S. C., and shipped a parcel from that place by express to Mrs. B. F. Cantey at Williston, North Dakota.
This is unquestionably within the law that governs interstate commerce. The regulation of interstate commerce is within the control of the Federal Government, and when it undertakes to regulate a matter of interstate commerce its regulations are exclusive. Where shipments passed through the hands of several carriers, it was always hard, and sometimes impossible, in case of loss or damage, for the shipper to fix the responsibility. In order to remedy this evil, Congress adopted what is known as "the Carmack Amendment" in 1906, whereby it is provided: "That any common carrier, receiving property for transportation from a point in one State to a point in another State, shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor, and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage or injury to such property caused by it or any common carrier, railroad or transportation company to which such property may be delivered, or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule or regulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad or transportation company from liability hereby imposed: Provided, That nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law." Supplement U. S. Statutes 1909, 1166.
The State statute, under which this action was brought, was passed subseqúently and cannot.be included in the proviso. . .
The State statute of 1910 affords the means of'answering the question in intrastate shipments—Who is liable ?
The Federal statute in interstate shipments answers the question before it is asked. It says the receiving carrier is liable.
The first exception is sustained.
The first exception being sustained, the- other questions do not fairly arise.
The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the case dismissed.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary concurs.