Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Varnville Co., 237 U.S. 597 (1915)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 237 U.S. 589, click here.

Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Company

v. Varnville Furniture Company
No. 273

Argued May 12, 1915
Decided June 1, 1915
237 U.S. 597

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Syllabus

A state law not contrived in aid of the policies of Congress, but to enforce a policy of the state differently conceived, cannot be said to be in aid of interstate commerce.

When Congress has.taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence of a state statute is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law on the same subject cannot he sustained as a help to the federal statute because it goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.

A state statute which is a burden on interstate commerce is not saved by calling it an exercise of police power.

Section 2573, Code of 112, of South Carolina, imposing a penalty on carriers for failure to settle, or adjust, claims within forty days is an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce and is also in conflict with the provisions of the Act to Regulate Commerce, as amended by the Act of June 29, 1906 (Carmack Amendment).

Atlantic Coast Line v. Mazursky, 216 U.S. 122, distinguished, as that case was decided prior to the enactment of the Carmack Amendment.

98 S.C. 63 reversed.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution of certain provisions of the South Carolina Civil Code of 1912 imposing penalties on carriers for failure to pay claims within a specified period, are stated in the opinion.