Morris v. Duby, 274 U.S. 135 (1927)
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 274 U.S. 123, click here.
Morris v. Duby
No. 372. Argued October 29, 1926 *
Decided April 18, 1927
274 U.S. 135
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.
Syllabus
1. The power of the states to make reasonable regulations to protect highways from damage by vehicles is not affected by the Acts of Congress providing for national and state cooperation in the construction of rural post roads. P. 143.
2. A state order limiting the maximum weight of motor trucks and loads on highways in the state is valid if reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and is applicable to vehicles moving in interstate commerce in the absence of legislation by Congress. P. 143.
3. The fact that a truck company, in interstate commerce, may not make a profit if loads are limited as prescribed by a state highway regulation does not prove the regulation unreasonable or discriminatory, and the fact that its competition with parallel steam roads may be prevented is outweighed by the fact that greater loads damage the highways. P. 144.
4. In the absence of a showing of fraud or abuse of discretion, a finding of the proper state administrative body as to the damage caused to highways by loads exceeding a specified weight must be accepted by this Court. P. 144.
5. The Acts of Congress and of Oregon for state and federal cooperation respecting construction and maintenance of highways do not impose a contractual obligation on the state to continue permitting the weights of trucks and loads that were permitted on the highways when the agreement was made. P. 144.
6. Under the convention effected between the state and the United States by the state’s acceptance of the conditions prescribed in the Acts of Congress providing for state and federal cooperation, and use of federal funds, in improvement of highway systems and in facilitating carriage of the mail over them, maintenance of a highway is primarily imposed on the state, and regulation of its use is therefore state function in which it is not to be interfered with unless regulations adopted are so arbitrary or unreasonable as to defeat the purposes of the federal acts. P. 145.
Affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the district court refusing an interlocutory injunction and dismissing the bill in a suit to enjoin the members of the Oregon Highway Commission from enforcing an order limiting the weight of trucks and loads that may operate on a highway in the state.