Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Mazursky

Citations

• 216 U.S. 122
• 30 S. Ct. 378
• 54 L. Ed. 411
• 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1878

Syllabus

<p>A state statute that requires a carrier to settle, within a specified time, claims for loss of or damage to freight while in its possession within that State, is not, in the absence of legislation by Congress on the subject, an unwarrantable interference with interstate commerce; and so held that Act No. 50 of South Carolina of February 23, 1903, to that effect is not unconstitutional under the commerce law as to goods shipped from without the State but which actually are in the possession of the carrier within the State.</p> <p>A state statute in aid of the performance of the duty of an interstate carrier which would exist in the absence of the statute, which does not obstruct the carrier, and which relates to the delivery of goods actually in .the carrier’s possession within the State, is not void as a regulation or obstruction to interstate commerce, in the absence of congressional legislation on the subject.</p>