{
  "id": 11253486,
  "name": "T. J. McDUFFIE v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "McDuffie v. Seaboard Air Line Railway",
  "decision_date": "1907-11-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "397",
  "last_page": "399",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "145 N.C. 397"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "201 U. S., 329",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 3905,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "sha256": "5684aed9256e295ca3ae1b136ad72d415c3a11f350ca3732d9805687e8665f6b",
    "simhash": "1:da76e980ba55d3ba",
    "word_count": 659
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:30.483289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "T. J. McDUFFIE v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BbowN, J.\nThe provision made by the Corporation Commission to compel carriers of freight to furnish cars within four days, as embodied in Rule 9 of the Commission, has been superseded by the act of Assembly of 190Y, ch. 21Y, sec. 3, which went into effect 1 July, 19OY, after plaintiff\u2019s alleged cause of action accrued.\nThe learned counsel for the defendant contends, in an argument of much force: (1) That the regulation is unreasonable, in that it fixes an arbitrary time within which the cars are to be furnished, allows no excuse or exception, and fixes no limit to the penalties that may be incurred. (-2) That the Commission had no power to make it. (3) That the shipper himself did not comply with it.\nIt is true, as contended, that the Supreme Court of the United States did hold a statute of Texas unconstitutional and void which required railroad companies to furnish cars within six days in unlimited numbers, within a time arbitrarily fixed by the statute and without regard to the circumstances or facilities of the company. (Houston and Texas Railroad v. Mayes, 201 U. S., 329. In commenting upon the unreasonableness of the statute the Court says: \u201cIt makes no exception in cases of a sudden congestion of traffic, an actual inability to furnish cars by reason of their temporary and unavoidable detention in other. States or in other places within the same State. It makes no allowance for interference of traffic occasioned by wrecks or other accidents upon the same or other roads, involving a detention of traffic, the breaking of bridges, accidental fires, washouts or other unavoidable consequences of heavy weather.\u201d1 In that case the Court held it to be an unreasonable regulation of interstate commerce. In -this case the car was not to be used in such commerce, but wholly within the State, viz., for transporting logs from Colon, N. C., to Raleigh, N. C.\nWhether we will follow the persuasive force of that authority in passing upon a matter of intrastate commerce, we need not and do not now determine. Nor need we pass upon the power of the Commission to make such a rule, as we are with the defendant upon its third proposition.\nIn this case it appears that the plaintiff applied in writing, on 3 January, for a car to be furnished \u201cby 5 January, 1907.\u201d (The rule allows the carrier four days in which to furnish cars to those who apply in writing and make the deposit. This application required the car to be furnished within two days. The defendant was not, therefore, required to fill it, and incurred no penalty for its failure to do so. J id ,\nThe plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and the defendant\u2019s motion should have been granted. Let the action be dismissed.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BbowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Day, Bell & Allen and Womack, Hayes & Bynum for defendant.",
      "Plaintiff not represented in this Court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "T. J. McDUFFIE v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY.\n(Filed 6 November, 1907).\nRailroads \u2014 Penalty\u2014Failure to Furnish Cars \u2014 North Carolina Corporation Commission Rules.\nThe defendant railway company is not liable for the penalty for failure to furnish cars to those who apply in writing or make the deposit under Rule 9 of the North Carolina Corporation Commission, when the company is not allowed the four days therein specified within which to furnish them, notwithstanding the railway company did not furnish them for twenty-three days.\nAotioN to recover penalty for failure to furnish cars as provided by Kule 9 of the Corporation Commission, tried before Webbj J., and a jury, at August Term, 1907, of the Superior Court of Chatham County.\nThe Court submitted these issues:\n\u201cDid the plaintiff apply in writing for the car, as alleged ?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n\u201cDid the defendant fail to furnish the car, as alleged?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes; twenty-three days.\u201d\n\u201cWhat amount is plaintiff entitled to recover ?\u201d Answer: \u201cTwenty-three dollars, including Sundays.\u201d\nErom the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nDay, Bell & Allen and Womack, Hayes & Bynum for defendant.\nPlaintiff not represented in this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0397-01",
  "first_page_order": 437,
  "last_page_order": 439
}