Opinion ID: 1008285
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: between a place in the District of Columbia and

Text: another place in the District of Columbia; (2) between a place in a territory or possession of the United States and another place in the same territory or possession; (3) between a place in a State and a place in another State; (4) between a place in a State and a place in the same State through another State or a foreign country; or (5) from a place in a State to a place in a foreign country. 49 U.S.C.A. § 80102 (West 1997). Two aspects of this section are noteworthy here. First, unlike the Carmack Amendment, which applies to transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I or III of chapter 135 or chapter 105, 49 U.S.C.A. § 14706(a)(1), the Pomerene Act applies to a bill of lading. Thus, or condition of contents of packages unknown, said to contain, shipper’s weight, load, and count, or words of the same meaning; and to the extent the carrier does not know whether any part of the goods were received or conform to the description. 49 U.S.C.A. § 80113(b) (internal subdivisions omitted). DUCK HEAD FOOTWEAR v. MASON AND DIXON LINES 9 the bill of lading, rather than the transportation service provided, is the relevant object of inquiry in determining whether the Act applies. The bill of lading M & D issued here was for transportation from Norfolk to Lynchburg — entirely intrastate — and thus the Pomerene Act is not implicated. Second, and equally fatal to M & D’s claim that the Pomerene Act applies, is the use of the words from and to in § 80102(5) (from a place in a State to a place in a foreign country). The Pomerene Act, then, by its terms, does not apply to shipments from a place in a foreign country to a place in a state in this country. Further support is lent to this conclusion by the four subsections that precede § 80102(5), all of which use the word between in describing the bills of lading to which the Act applies; Congress, we may presume, did not lightly select the construction from one place to another, but instead meant to cover only bills of lading issued for the transportation of goods from a state to a foreign country, and not the reverse. In sum, M & D’s argument that the district court should have applied the Pomerene Act is ill-founded.