The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation - LightNovelsOnl.com
You're reading novel online at LightNovelsOnl.com. Please use the follow button to get notifications about your favorite novels and its latest chapters so you can come back anytime and won't miss anything.
[894] Merrick _v._ Halsey & Co., 242 U.S. 568 (1917). _See also_ Hall _v._ Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539 (1917); Caldwell _v._ Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co., 242 U.S. 559 (1917).
[895] Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. _v._ Illinois ex rel.
McLaughlin, 298 U.S. 155 (1936), citing Cargill Co. _v._ Minnesota, 180 U.S. 452, 470 (1901); Simpson _v._ Shepard (Minnesota Rate Case), 230 U.S. 352, 410 (1913); Hall _v._ Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539, 557 (1917); Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. _v._ McLean, 291 U.S. 17 (1934).
[896] Davis _v._ Cleveland, C.C. & St. L. Co., 217 U.S. 157 (1910).
[897] Martin _v._ West, 222 U.S. 191 (1911).
[898] The "Winnebago," 205 U.S. 354, 362 (1907).
[899] Justice Hughes for the Court in Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson _v._ Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 406 (1913).
[900] Ibid. 408.
[901] Railroad Co. _v._ Husen, 95 U.S. 465 (1878).
[902] Kimmish _v._ Ball, 129 U.S. 217 (1889).
[903] Smith _v._ St. Louis & S.W.R. Co., 181 U.S. 248 (1901).
[904] Ibid. 255. Morgan's S.S. Co. _v._ Louisiana Bd. of Health, 118 U.S. 455 (1886) is cited.
[905] Hebe Co. _v._ Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919).
[906] Hygrade Provision Co. _v._ Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 (1925).
[907] Mintz _v._ Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (1933).
[908] Pacific States Box & Basket Co. _v._ White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935).
[909] Bayside Fish Flour Co. _v._ Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).
[910] Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. _v._ Agnew, 300 U.S. 608 (1937).
[911] Bourjois, Inc. _v._ Chapman, 301 U.S. 183 (1937).
[912] Clason _v._ Indiana, 306 U.S. 439 (1939).
[913] Milk Control Bd. _v._ Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346 (1939).
[914] Patapsco Guano Co. _v._ North Carolina, 171 U.S. 345 (1898).
[915] Savage _v._ Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912); followed in Corn Products Refining Co. _v._ Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919).
[916] Pure Oil Co. _v._ Minnesota, 248 U.S. 158 (1918).
[917] Mutual Film Corp. _v._ Hodges, 236 U.S. 248 (1915).
[918] Minnesota _v._ Barber, 136 U.S. 313 (1890); _see also_ Brimmer _v._ Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891).
[919] 136 U.S. at 322. _See also_ pp. 328-329.
[920] Voight _v._ Wright, 141 U.S. 62 (1891).
[921] Hale _v._ Bimco Trading Co., 306 U.S. 375 (1939).
[922] Dean Milk Co. _v._ Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951).
[923] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).
[924] Ibid. 449.
[925] Woodruff _v._ Parham, 8 Wall. 123 (1869). There were later some departures from the rule, apparently due to inattention, in cases involving oil. _See_ Standard Oil _v._ Graves, 249 U.S. 389 (1919); Askren _v._ Continental Oil Co., 252 U.S. 444 (1920); Bowman _v._ Continental Oil Co., 256 U.S. 642 (1921) and Texas Co. _v._ Brown, 258 U.S. 466 (1922). These cases were "qualified," and in fact disavowed in Sonneborn Bros. _v._ Cureton, 262 U.S. 506, 520 (1923). _Cf._ the contemporary case of Wagner _v._ Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1912) where the true rule is followed.
[926] Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).
[927] Kidd _v._ Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888).
[928] 125 U.S. 465 (1888).
[929] Leisy & Co. _v._ Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890).
[930] 26 Stat. 313 (1890); sustained in In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545 (1891).
[931] Rhodes _v._ Iowa, 170 U.S. 412 (1898).
[932] 37 Stat. 699 (1913); sustained in Clark Distilling Co. _v._ Western Md. Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311 (1917).
[933] Austin _v._ Tennessee, 179 U.S. 343 (1900).
[934] 155 U.S. 461 (1894).
[935] 135 U.S. 100 (1890).
[936] 155 U.S. at 474.
[937] Schollenberger _v._ Pennsylvania, 171 U.S. 1 (1898).
[938] Collins _v._ New Hamps.h.i.+re, 171 U.S. 30 (1898).
[939] _See_ note 1 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 933, above.]
[940] State Board _v._ Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59 (1936); Finch & Co. _v._ McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395 (1939); Brewing Co. _v._ Liquor Comm'n., 305 U.S. 391 (1939); Ziffrin, Inc. _v._ Reeves, 308 U.S. 132 (1939).
[941] Duckworth _v._ Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390 (1941); followed in Carter _v._ Virginia, 321 U.S. 131 (1944). Justice Jackson would have preferred to rest the decision on the Twenty-first Amendment instead of "what I regard as an unwise extension of State power over interstate commerce,"
314 U.S. at 397; and appears to have converted Justice Frankfurter.
_See_ latter's opinion in 321 U.S. at 139-143.
