Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co.

Citations

• 237 U.S. 597
• 35 S. Ct. 715
• 59 L. Ed. 1137
• 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1372

Syllabus

<p>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.</p> <p>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 be sustained as a help to the Federal statute because it goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.</p> <p>A state statute which is a burden on interstate commerce is not saved by calling.it an exercise of police power.</p> <p>Section 2573, Code of 1912, 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.)</p> <p>Atlantic Coast Line v. Mazursky, 216 U. S.' 122, distinguished, as that case was decided prior to the enactment of the Carmack Amendment.</p>