American Express Co. v. Iowa

Citations

• 196 U.S. 133
• 25 S. Ct. 182
• 49 L. Ed. 417
• 1905 U.S. LEXIS 885

Syllabus

<p>The writ of error in O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 344, was dismissed because it did not appear that the commerce clause of the Constitution was relied on in, was called to the attention of, or passed on by, the state court, and the ease is inapposite where it appears that the protection of commerce clause was properly set up, relied upon in, and denied by, the state court.</p> <p>Bowman v. Chicago, 125 U. S. 465, Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, Vance v. Vandercook Co. No. 1, 170 U. S. 438, rest on the broad principle of the freedom of commerce between the States, of the right of citizens of one State to freely contract to receive and send merchandise from and to another State, and on the want of power of one State to destroy contracts concerning interstate commerce valid in the States where made.'</p> <p>The right of the parties thereto to make a contract, valid in the State where made, for the sale and purchase of merchandise and in so doing to fix the time when, and condition on which, completed title shall pass is beyond question.</p> <p>Without passing on the questions whether the property in a C. O. D. shipment is at the risk of buyer or seller and when the sale is completed, a package of intoxicating liquor received by an express company in one State to be carried to another State, and there delivered to the consignee C. O. D. for price of the package and .the expressage, is interstate commerce and is under the protection of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution and cannot, prior to its actual delivery to the consignee, be confiscated under prohibitory liquor laws of the State.</p>