{
  "id": 11271516,
  "name": "R. L. SMART v. TALLULAH FALLS RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smart v. Tallulah Falls Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "650",
  "last_page": "651",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "173 N.C. 650"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2900,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "sha256": "4b3b2814c8e4a5f61920070a81e8a4eb3121f3a8644ecffa3295bbd575ed1e42",
    "simhash": "1:08049c11f61496c8",
    "word_count": 489
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:49:44.051040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. L. SMART v. TALLULAH FALLS RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "AlleN, J.\nTbe question involved in this appeal has been decided against tbe defendant in two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of tbe United States, Penn. R. R. Co. v. Sonman Shaft Coal Co., decided 4 December, 1916, and Penn. R. R. Co. v. Stineman Coal Mining Co., decided 18 December, 1916.\nIn both cases tbe action was brought in tbe State courts to recover damages for failure to furnish cars to be used in interstate commerce, and tbe jurisdiction of tbe State courts was sustained and judgment recovered, although tbe same defense was relied on as in this action; and upon these authorities tbe judgment is affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "AlleN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jones & Jones for plaintiff.",
      "Blanton Fortson and Johnston & Horn for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. L. SMART v. TALLULAH FALLS RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 26 May, 1917.)\nCommerce \u2014 Federal Statutes \u2014 Carriers\u2014Failure to Furnish Cars \u2014 Common Law \u2014 State Statutes \u2014 Courts\u2014Jurisdiction.\nThe common law and State statutory remedies of a shipper for damages upon the failure of a carrier to furnish cars to he used for interstate shipments are not interfered with by the Federal statutes regulating interstate commerce, and an action therefor may be maintained in the courts of the State.\nCivil actioN, tried before Harding, J., at Fall Term, 1916, of 1\u00cdAOON.\nThis is an action to recover damages for the alleged failure of the defendant to furnish two cars for the shipment of cattle from Otto, North Carolina, to Atlanta, Georgia, within the time called for in the written order which the plaintiff gave the defendant for the cars. Plaintiff alleged that by the failure to furnish the ears on the 20th he was compelled to incur extra expenses and was damaged in the sum of $210. The defendant denied the allegations of the complaint, and by way of affirmative relief averred that the cars requested by the plaintiff of the defendant were to he used in an interstate shipment, and that therefore the plaintiff could not maintain this action, for that Congress had entered the field covered by the State statute and the common law, upon which the plaintiff\u2019s alleged cause of action is based, by the act to regulate commerce, of 4 February, 1887, and the amendments thereto of 29 June, 1906, and 18 June, 1910, and averred that said act as amended has superseded all State legislation and common-law remedies as to damages for delay in furnishing cars to be used in interstate shipments. Tbe jury returned a verdict for tbe sum of $112 in favor of tbe plaintiff, and from a judgment for tbat amount rendered in favor of tbe plaintiff, tbe defendant appealed.\nTbe question of law involved is, Whether, this being admittedly an interstate shipment, tbe State court bad jurisdiction to bear and determine tbe plaintiff\u2019s claim for damages for failure to furnish stock cars at tbe time ordered, or whether tbe plaintiff should have applied for relief to tbe Interstate Commerce Commission.\nJones & Jones for plaintiff.\nBlanton Fortson and Johnston & Horn for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0650-01",
  "first_page_order": 708,
  "last_page_order": 709
}