Hampton v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

Citations

• 227 U.S. 456
• 33 S. Ct. 263
• 57 L. Ed. 596
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2319

Syllabus

<p>A provision in a state statute that interstate railroads shall furnish cars for interstate shipments which regulates the furnishing of cars is invalid by reason of the. Hepburn Act;, but if it only means that there shall be no discrimination against interstate shipments, it might not ' invalidate an act, otherwise valid, as to intrastate shipments.</p> <p>The fact that an act requiring railroads to furnish cars includes no exceptions is not conclusive of its meaning and intent; and an act cannot be construed as not permitting any exceptions where, as in this case, the state court has held that the penalties are enforceable only in an.action at law, and that as such a provision is declaratory of the common law, any reasonable excuse may be interposed.</p> <p>This court will not entertain a case where the party setting up the unconstitutionality of a statute does not belong to the class for whose sake the constitutional protection is given or to the class primarily affected; nor will-it, at the instance of a party not belonging to a class affected, go into an imaginary case on the ground that the law if unconstitutional as to one is so as to all. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152.</p> <p>Where there was an agreement of the parties to confine the case wholly to the question of constitutionality of the statute attacked, and -complainant does not show that his rights protected under the Constitution have actually been invaded, but the objections suggested are conjectural, the bill should be' dismissed; and so held as to an action brought’.to test the constitutionality under the commerce clause of a statute of Arkansas requiring railroads to promptly furnish cars.</p>