Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 60 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 60 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


pany would receive and receipt for such
cotton from defendant or shippers, com-
press the same, and load it in cars of
defendant, as directed, for which it was
to receive payment as herein fixed. It
also agreed to be responsible to defend-
ant for any loss of damage to such cot-
ton while in its possession. A through
shipment of cotton was made from a
point in Mississippi to plaintiff at New
York by way of Birmingham, and thence
over defendant's road. The initial car-
rier delivered the cotton to the belt line
road, which delivered it to the compress
company. The first carrier then paid to
defendant its share of the freight, and
delivered to it the compress company's
receipts. The cotton was not delivered
by the compress company to defendant,
and was never received by plaintiff
which brought an action against defend-
ant for its value. Aside from such con-
tract, there was evidence of a custom of
the initial carrier to make deliveries of
cotton to defendant at Birmingham in
the manner pursued in this instance.
Held, that such evidence warranted the
submission to the jury of the question
whether the delivery of the cotton to
the compress company constituted a de-
livery to defendant, either because of an
agency to receive it, created by the con-
tract, or by the custom which the evi-
dence tended to prove. Southern R. Co.
V. Hubbard Bros. Co., 146 Fed. 31, judg-
ment affirmed on rehearing 150 Fed. 312.

Question of delivery in good condition
to connecting carrier. — Whether a car-
rier of live stock delivered it in good
condition to a connecting carrier is a
qiiestion of fact for the jury. Louisville,
etc., R. Co. V. Crozier, 13 Ky. L. Rep.
175.

Question as to conductor's duty to put
car on track from which connecting line
took cars. — Where, in an action against
a railroad company for damages caused
by delay in carrying plaintiff's merchan-



3415



ACTIONS.



3809



to recover, the court should instruct the jury to that effect; 22 and if there



IS no



disc, the evidence was contradictory as
to whether it was the duty of defend-
ant's conductor to put the car containing
the merchandise on a track from which
the connecting line took cars for defend-
ant, the question was for the jury. Blod-
gett V. Abbot, 72 Wis. 516, 40 N! W. 491,
7 Am. St. Rep. 873.

Question on which line of railway in-
jury occurred. — Where horses were in-
jured in shipment over several coiuiect-
ing lines of railway, an instruction that
the question on which line of railway the
injury occurred was for the jury, was
proper. Milam v. Southern R. Co., 36 S.
E. 571, 58 S. C. 247.

Where, in an action against a carrier
for injuries to fruit shipped under a con-
tract requiring that the cars should be
properly iced when delivered, there was
some evidence that the cars furnished
were inadequately iced, and that plain-
tiffs were not aware of the fact until
they were loaded, when it was too late to
remedy the difficulty, and there was other
evidence that the cars were delayed in
transit on defendant's line, whether the
injury occurred while the cars were on
defendant's line was for the jury. John-
son V. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 95 N. W. 724,
133 Mich. 596, 103 Am. St. Rep. 464.

Tn an action against the initial carrier
for negligence in the transportation of a*
shipment of stock it appeared that the
carrier limited its liability to its own
line. The train which carried the stock ■
was delayed by a wreck on the initial
carrier's line. The stock was placed on
the receiving track of the connecting car-
rier. There was nothing to show when
the stock left that point or how it was
transported from there to the point of
destination. Held, that the question of
the liability of the initial carrier was for
the jury. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Stev-
ens, 96 _S. W. 888, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 1079.

Question of connecting carrier's liabil-
ity. — Under a contract exempting the
carriers from liability for loss through
heat or decay, berries in good condition
were shipped at double rates, with notice
to a connecting carrier, in summer, in a
car properly iced so as to require no
further attention until the following
afternoon. They were delivered to the
connecting carrier the next day, at 1
o'clock, at a place seven miles from its
ice house, and were permitted to remain
on the track until evening, when, on in-
spection, the ice boxes of the car were
found two-thirds empty, and refilled.
'I he condition of the berries when de-
livered to the connecting carrier did not
appear, field, that the issue of the con-
necting carrier's liability was properly
submitted to the jury. Lamb v. Chi-
cago, etc., R. Co., 76 N. W. 1123, 101 Wis.
138.



In an action against a railroad for in-
juries to horses, it appeared that it was
the last of three connecting lines, and
plaintiffs averred that such injury was
caused by defendant's negligence. De-
fendant receipted for the stock as in
"good order and condition," and there
was other evidence that the horses were
unhurt wlien received by defendant, and
were injured wJien they reached their desti-
nation. Held, that whether or not the
horses were injured by defendant's neg-
ligence was for the jury. Louisville,
etc., R. Co. V. Grant, 99 Ala. 325, 13 So.
599.

Whether a connecting carrier of horses
in a car furnished by the initial carrier
was negligent in transporting the horses
in a defective car held for the jury. Blair
V. Wells Fargo & Co. (Iowa), 135 N. W.
615.

In an action for the loss of a horse
out of a car load, the verdict should not
be directed for defendant where it is not
clearly shown that he was dead in the
car when delivered to defendant by con-
necting carrier. Walker v. Southern R.
Co., 5(i _S. E. 952. 76 S. C. 308.

Questions for jury in actions against
earners for loss of freight.— In an action
against the initial and connecting car-
riers for loss of freight, held, that the
questions whether the freight was de-
livered to the initial carrier, and, if it
was, whether it was lost by it, or whether
it was lost by the connecting carrier,
were for the jury. Mussellam v. Cincin-
nati, etc., R. Co., 104 S. W. 337, 31 Ky.
L. Rep. 908.

In an action for a loss of wool in ship-
ment, whether the loss occurred upon
the lines of the terminal carrier or while
in ita possession held, on the evidence,
a jury question. New York, etc., Transp.
Line v. Baer & Co., 84 Atl. 251, 118
Md. 73.

22.. Evidence warranting instruction
that there was no legally sufficient evi-
dence to entitle plaintiff to recover.—
Evidence in an action against a connect-
ing carrier for damages from delay in
transportation considered, and held to
warrant the court in instructing the jury
that upon the pleading and evidence
there was no legally sufficient evidence
to entitle the plaintiff to recover. Shock-
ley V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 109 Md. 123,
71 Atl. 437.

In an action against a carrier to re-
cover for apples injured by freezing
within two days while they were in the
course of transportation through a cold
snowstorm, where there was evidence
that the -apples were frozen when they
arrived, but no evidence of their condi-
tion when they were received by the
defendant from a connecting road, over
which they were transmitted in the same



§§ 3809-3811



CARRIERS.



3416



evidence to sustain an item in plaintiff's claim it is error to submit such item to
the jury. - ^ If there is no evidence that would warrant the jury in finding that
defendant made a contract for through transportation, it is error to submit to the
jury the question of the existence of such a contract.-'* In an action against two
railroads for negligence in transporting plaintiff's cattle, where the evidence con-
clusively shows that the two roads are one and the same, save in name only, the
court may summarily instruct the jury to that eft"ect, instead of submitting the
question to them.^^ A nonsuit will be ordered in an action against a terminal
carrier for damages to a shipment if the evidence conclusively overcomes the
presumption that defendant is liable.-*^

§ 3810. Verdict.— In an action against several carriers for injuries to live
stock, in the absence of a special contract extending the liability beyond the end
of their respective lines, the jury should be instructed to find a separate verdict
against each carrier for the damages that occurred on its line.-^ Where an
action is brought against connecting carriers for injuries to live stock shipped
without any person accompanying them, and both carriers deny all negligence
and offer evidence in support of the denial, in the face of conclusive evidence of
serious delay in transportation, and that the animals when delivered were in-
jured, so that it is impossible for the jury to determine which of the carriers is
to blame for their condition, a verdict charging the entire damages against each
is proper. 28

§ 3811. Judgment. — When Joint Judgment May Be Rendered. — The

court, in an action against the initial and connecting carriers for damages for
joint negligence in transporting a shipment of live stock, may render a joint judg-
ment against them, they being joint tort-feasors arising from their joint concur-



car during the previous day, except that
the weather was very cold, defendant is
entitled to a' ruling that there is no evi-
dence that the apples were delivered be-
fore they were frozen. Swetland v. Bos-
ton, etc., R. Co.. 102 Mass. 276.

23. Error to submit to jury item in
plaintiff's claim if there is no evidence
to sustain it. — ]\IcManus v. Chicago, etc.,
R. Co., 138 Iowa 150, 115 N. W. 919.

In an action for damages to a ship-
ment of stock, where there was evidence
that one animal was down before the
stock reached a connecting carrier, and
that there was a delay caused by an ob-
struction on defendant's track, but there
was no evidence showing the cause of
the animal's condition, nor that it was
thrown down by improper management
of the train, or that its condition was in
any way caused by defendant, submis-
sion to the jury of the issue of damages
therefor was error. ]\Ic]\Ianus v. Chi-
cago, etc., R. Co., 138 Iowa 150, 115 N.
W. 919.

24. Evidence not warranting submis-
sion to jury of question of existence of
contract for through transportation. — A
shipping receipt recited that the goods
were marked, "F. M. P., Delavan, Wis.,
care W. W. A., Buffalo," and provided
that they were "to be delivered in good
order * * * as addressed." A re-
ceipt given the owner by H., a forwarder
at the place of shipment, stated that the
goods were received in store, and in all
other respects appeared to be a contract



by him as forwarder, but had written
thereon the price of freight from Buf-
falo, which H. testified was merely a
memorandum made from a circular in
his possession. There was no statement
of the freight to Buffalo, and nothing
stating that H. professed to act as agent
for the carrier, which was engaged in
transporting goods by canal to Buffalo,
and by whose boat the goods were
shipped, and no proof that he was such
agent, except the fact that he shipped
goods by it and received goods from it.
Held, that it was error to submit to the
jury the question whether there was a
contract by the carrier to transport the
goods through to Delavan. Parmelee v.
Western Transp. Co., 26 Wis. 439.

25. Evidence warranting instruction
that two roads are one save in name. — •
Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Crump, 74 S.
W. 335, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 222; Buie v.
Chicago, etc., R. Co., 95 Tex. 51, 65 S.
W. 27, 55 L. R. A. 861; San Antonio,
etc., R. Co. V. Griffin, 20 Tex. Civ. App.
91, 48 S. W. 542, affirmed in 93 Tex. 694,
no op.; Terrell v. Russell, 16 Tex. Civ.
App. 573, 42 S. W. 129, affirmed in 93
Tex. 721, no op.

26. When a nonsuit will be ordered. —
Parnell v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 91
S. C. 270, 74 S. E. 491.

27. Verdict.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v.
CvLvry, 106 S. W. 294, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 513.

28. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Greening,
100 S. W. 825, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 1180.



3417 ACTIONS. § 3811

rent negligence, in failing to properly transport the stock.29 Where plaintiff al-
leges a partnership between carriers jointly sued and such fact is not denied in
the answer, a joint judgment is properly rendered.-*"

When Judgment Decreeing a Joint and Several Liability Is Proper. —
Where the verdict, in an action against two railroad companies, finds a joint lia-
bility, a judgment decreeing a join and several liability is proper.^i

Judgment against Connecting Carriers Made Parties Defendant in
Suit against Initial Carrier. — In an action against an initial carrier for in-
juries to live stock, all the connecting carriers against whom it is sought to re-
cover damages may be made parties defendant; and, if brought before the court
by process as provided by statute, a judgment may be given against any one or
all of them that the evidence shows to have committed the injuries.^^

29. When joint judgment may be ren- Kansas R. Co. v. Crump, 32 Tex. Civ.
dered.— Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Crull, 112 App. 222, 74 S. W. 335, affirmed in 97
\'a. 151, 70 S. E. 521. Tex. 647, no op., following Kuykendall

30. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Edlofif, 89 Tex. v. Coulter, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 399, 26 S. W.
454, 34 S. W. 414, 35_ _S. W. 144, affirm- 748.

ing 34 S. W. 410, citing International, 32. Judgment against connecting car-

etc, R. Co. V. Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8, 11 S. riers made parties defendant in suit

W. 900, 4 L. R. A. 545; Bavlor County v. against initial carrier.^Illinois Cent. R.

Craig, 69 Tex. 330, 6 S. W. 305. Co. v. Curry, 106 S. W. 294, 32 Ky. L.

31. When judgment decreeing a joint Rep. 513.
and several liability is proper. — Southern



PART VI
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE



CHAPTER XXXIV.
Interstate Commerce in General.

I. In General, § 3812.
II. Statutory Provisions, § 3813.

III. Articles of Commerce, § 3814.

IV. Means and Instruments of Commerce, §§ 3815-3828.

A. In General, § 3815.

B. Railroads, § 3816.

C. Express Companies, § 3817.

D. Dining Cars, § 3818.

E. Terminal Companies and Stockyards, § 3819.

F. Warehouses and Elevators, § 3820.

G. Pipe Lines, § 3821.
H. Bridges, § 3822.

I. Ferries, § 3823.

J. Ports, Harbors and Wharves, § 3824.

K. Connecting Carriers, § 3825.

L. Soliciting Agents, § 3826.

M. Steamboats, § 3827.

N. Determining Whether Commerce Is Intrastate or Interstate, § 3828.

§ 3812. In General.— Commerce with foreign nations and among the sev-
eral states, the regulation of which is committed to congress by the constitution,
comprehends not merely traffic, but intercourse for the purposes of trade in any
and all its forms,i between the citizens of the United States and the citizens or

1. Interstate and foreign commerce.— Maryland (U. S.), 12 Wheat. 419 6 L

2 Story on the Constitution, §§ 1057, 1061, Ed. 678; United States z;. Knight Co 156

1062. Gibbons V. Ogden (U. S.), 9 Wheat. U. S. 1, 39 L. Ed 325, 15 S Ct. 249; Hen-

1 190, 6 L. Ed. 23; County of Mobile v. derson z-: New York, 92 U. b. 2p9, 23 i..

Kimball. 102 U. S. 691, 26 L. Ed. 238; Ed. 543; United States 7'. Holliday (U.

Welton V. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275. 23 L. S.), 3 Wall. 407, 18 L. Ed. 182; Jn erstate

Ed. 347; Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. Commerce Comm. v. Brimson, lo4 U. b.

560 21 L. Ed. 710; Veazie v. Moor (U. 447, 38 L. Ed. 1047, 14 S. Ct. n2o; Cov-

S.), 14 How. 568, 14 L. Ed. 545; Steam- ington, etc., Bridge Co. v. Kentucky 154

ship Co. 7: JolifTe (U. S.), 2 Wall. 450, U. S. 204, 38 L. Ed. 962 14 S. Ct. 1087;

17 L. Ed. 805; State Tonnage Tax Cases Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union

(U S), 12 Wall. 204. 20 L. Ed. 370; Case Tel Co., 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. Ed. -08; Wil-

of the State Freight Tax (U. S.), 15 liams r. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 45 L Ed

Wall. 232, 21 L. Ed. 146; Lord v. Steam- 186, 21 S. Ct. 128; Anderson '^'-United

ship Co. 102 U. S. 541, 26 L. Ed. 224; States, 171 U. S. 604. 43 _L. Ed. 300 19 S.

Kidd V. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 20, 32 E. Ct. 50; Northern Securities Co. z-. United

Ed. 346, 9 S. Ct. 6; McCall v. California, States, 193 U. S. 197, 330 48 L Ed. 6/9 24

136 U S 104, 34 L. Ed. 392, 10 S. Ct. 881; S. Ct. 436; Leisy v. Hardin 135 U. S. 100,

Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 34 L. Ed. 128, 10 S. Ct 681; License

114 U. S. 196. 29 L. Ed. 158, 5 S. Ct. 826; Cases (U. S.), 5 How. 504, 12 L. Ed. 256,

Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 125 U. In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545, 35 L. Ed.

S 465 31 L. Ed. 700. S S. Ct. 689, 1062; 572, 11 S. Ct. 865; Lehigh Valley R. Co.

Addvston Pipe, etc., Co. v. United States, v. Pennsylvania, 145 U S. 192, 36 L Ld.

175 U S 211 44 L. Ed. 136, 20 S. Ct. 96; 672, 12 S. Ct. 806; Hopkins 7;. United

Lindsav, etc., Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. States, 171 U. S. 578, 43 L. Ed. 290, 19 b.

126, 44'L. Ed. 400. 20 S. Ct. 325; Brown :■. Ct. 40.



3419



INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN GENE:RAL.



§ 3812



subjects of foreign countries, and between the citizens of different states,^ in-
cluding within these terms transportation and transit.^ Such transportation and
transit embraces the transportation and transit of persons ^ and property ^ by
land ^ or by waterJ

Commerce among the several states, or interstate commerce, is commerce
which concerns more states than one. The word among means intermingled
with. A thing which is among others, is intermingled with them. Commerce
among the states can not stop at the external boundary line of each state, but
may be introduced into the interior. It is not intended to say that these words
comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on be-
tween man and man in a state, or between different parts of the same state, and
which does not extend to or affect other states. Such a power would be incon-
venient, and is certainly unnecessary. Comprehensive as the word among is, it
may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states
than one. The completely internal commerce of a state, then, may be considered
as reserved for the state itself.^

Commerce with foreign nations signifies commerce which, in some sense, is



2. Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23
L. Ed. 347; County of IMobile v. Kim-
ball, 102 U. S. .691, 20 L. Ed. 238; Glou-
cester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.
S. 196, 29 L. Ed. 158, 5 S. Ct. 826; Hop-
kins V. United States, 171 U. S. 578, 43
L. Ed. 290, 19 S. Ct. 40; Lindsay, etc., Co.
V. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126, 44 L. Ed. 400,

20 S. Ct. 325; Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v.
United States, 175 U. S. 211, 44 L. Ed.
136, 20 S. Ct. 96; Northern Securities Co.
V. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 48 L. Ed.
679, 24 S. Ct. 436.

3. County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.
S. 691, 26 L. Ed. 238; Kidd v. Pearson,
128 U. S. 1, 20, 32 L. Ed. 346, 9 S. Ct. 6;
McCall V. California, 136 U. S. 104, 34 L.
Ed. 392, 10 S. Ct. 881; Welton v. Mis-
souri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. Ed. 347; Rail-
road Co. V. Fuller (U. S.), 17 Wall. 560,

21 L. Ed. 710; Gloucester Ferry Co. v.
Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. Ed.
158, 5 S. Ct. 826; Walling v. People, 116
U. S. 446, 29 L. Ed. 691, 6 S. Ct. 454;
Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U.
S. 465, 31 L. Ed. 700, 8 S. Ct. 689, 1062;
Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. United States,
175 U. S. 211, 44 L. Ed. 136, 20 S. Ct. 96;
Lindsay, etc., Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S.
120, 44 L. Ed. 400, 20 S. Ct. 325; Hop-
kins V. United States. 171 U. S. 578, 43
L. Ed. 290, 19 S. Ct. 40.

4. Transportation of persons.— County
of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 26
L. Ed. 238; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S.
1. 20. 32 L. Ed, 346, 9 S. Ct. 6; McCall v.
California, 136 U. S. 104, 34 L. Ed. 392,
10 S. Ct. 881; Case of the State Freight
Tax (U. S.), 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. Ed. 146;
Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania,
114 U. S. 196, 29 L. Ed. 158, 5 S. Ct. 826;
Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U.
S. 405, 31 L. Ed. 700, 8 S. Ct. 089, 1062;
Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. United States,
17') U. S. 211, 44 L. Ed. 136, 20 S. Ct. 96;
Lmdsay, etc., Co. v. Mullen. 176 U. S.
126, 44 L. Ed. 400, 20 S. Ct. 325; Williams
V. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 45 L. Ed. 186, 21



^. Ct. 128.

5. Transportation of property. — Wel-
ton V. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. Ed.
347; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 20,32
L. Ed. 346, 9 S. Ct. 6; McCall v. Califor-
nia, 136 U. S. 104, 34 L. Ed. 392, 10 S. Ct.
881; County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102
U. S. 691, 26 L. Ed. 238; Gloucester Ferry
Co. V. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L,
Ed. 158, 5 S. Ct. 826; Walling v. People,
116 U. S. 446, 29 L. Ed. 691, 6 S. Ct. 454^
Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U.
S. 465, 31 L. Ed. 700, 8 S. Ct. 689. 1062;
Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. United States,.
175 U. S. 211, 44 L. Ed. 136, 20 S-. Ct.
96; Lindsay, etc., Co. v. Mullen, 176 U.
S. 126, 44 L. Ed. 400, 20 S. Ct. 325; Wil-
liams V. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 45 L. Ed.
186, 21 S. Ct. 128; Northern Securities
Co. V. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 48 L.
Ed. 679, 24 S. Ct. 436.

The transportation of freight, or of the
subjects of commerce for the purpose of
exchange or sale, is a constituent part
of commerce itself. Case of the State
Freight Tax (U. S.), 15 Wall. 232, 21 L.
Ed. 146; Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.^
125 U. S. 465, 31 L. Ed. 700, 8 S. Ct. 689,
1062.

6. Transportation by land. — 2 Story on
the Constitution, §§ lOGl. 1062; Case of
the State Freight Tax (U. S.), 15 Wall.
232, 21 L. Ed. 146: Railroad Co. z'. Ful-
ler (U. S.), 17 Wall. 560, 21 L. Ed. 710;
Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U.
S. 465. 31 L. Ed. VOO, 8 S. Ct. 689, 1062.

7. Transportation by water. — 2 Story
on the Constitution, §§ 1061, 1062; Rail-
road Co. V. Fuller (U. S.), 17 Wall. 560, 21
L. Ed. 710; Case of the State Freight Tax
(U. S.), 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. Ed. 146; Bow-
man V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S.
465, 31 L. Ed. 700, 8 S. Ct. 689, 1062.

8. Leovy v. United States, 177 U. S. 621,
44 L. Ed. 914, 20 S. Ct. 797: Gibbons v.
Ogden (U. S.), 9 Wheat. 1, 193, 6 L.
Ed. 23,



§ 3812



CARRIERS.



3420



necessarily connected with these nations, transactions which either immediately
or at some state of their progress must be extraterritorial.^

Commerce between Individuals. — Commerce with foreign nations and
among the states means commerce between the citizens of the United States and
citizens or subjects of foreign governments, and between the citizens of different
states, as individuals.^"

Carriage by Corporation. — The protection of the interstate commerce clause
of the federal constitution extends to commerce conducted by corporations as
well as to that conducted by individuals.^^

Means and Instruments of Commerce. — The term "commerce," in its
broadest acceptation, embraces not merely traffic, but the means, vehicles and ap-
pHances necessarily employed in carrying it on.^^

Gratuitous Carriage. — The power of congress over interstate transportation
embraces all manner of carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise. ^^

Navigation. — Navigation is included in the word commerce as used in the
constitution of the United States. !•*

"Transportation of property from one state to another is a branch of inter-
state commerce. Transportation is essential to commerce, or rather it is com-
merce itself, and every obstacle to it, or burden laid upon it by legislative author-
ity, is regulation." ^^

Intercourse and Traffic. — Commerce with foreign countries and among the
states, strictly considered, consists in intercourse and traffic, including in these
terms navigation and the transportation and transit of persons and property as
well as the purchase, sale and exchange of commodities.^^ Commerce undoubt-
edly is traffic, but it is something more ; it is intercourse. It describes the com-
mercial intercourse between nations and parts of the nations in all its branches,
and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. ^"^



9. Commerce with foreign nations. —

Veazie v. Moor (U. S.), 14 How. 568, 14
L. Ed. 545; Lord v. Steamship Co., 102
U. S. 541, 26 L. Ed. 224.

10. United States v. HolHday (U. S.),
3 Wall. 407, 18 L. Ed. 182; Trade Mark
Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 25 L. Ed. 550; Hen-
derson V. New York, 92 U. S. 259, 23 L.
Ed. 543.

11. Carriage by corporation. — Greek-
American Sponge Co. v. Richardson
Drug Co., 124 Wis. 469, 102 N. W. 888,
109 Am. St. Rep. 961.

12. Means and instruments of com-
merce. — 2 Story on the Constitution, §§
1061, 1062; Veazie v. Moor (U. S.), 14
How. 568, 14 L. Ed 545; Railroad Co.
V. Fuller (U. S.), 17 Wall. 560, 21 L. Ed.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 60 of 214)