Skip to main content
· 4/28/1924

Stoner & Co. v. Blocton Export Coar Co.

Citations

  • 135 Miss. 390
  • 100 So. 5

Syllabus

<p>1. Commerce. Statutes and regulations of Interstate Commerce Commission binding on both federal and state courts.</p> <p>Regislation by Congress under commerce clause of the Federal Constitution (article 1, section 8, clause 3), as well as administrative orders' for the regulation of interstate carriers adopted by the Interstate Commerce Commission in pursuance of such legislation, are controlling upon both federal and state courts.</p> <p>2. Sales. Seller prevented from shipping to purchaser because of subsequent car service orders excused from performance.</p> <p>Though it be not provided for in the contract, still, if a subsequent change is made in the law whereby performance of the contract becomes unlawful, its performance is excused. Under this principle, if the seller of coal is prevented from shipping to the purchaser because of a subsequent car service order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the seller is excused from the performance of the contract even though the contract did not provide against such a contingency.</p> <p>3. Commerce. Preferential ear service order of Interstate Commerce Commission, construed.</p> <p>The Interstate Commerce Commission passed a preferential car service order Known as service order No. 23 as amended July 25, 1922, regulating the furnishing of cars by interstate common carriers for the loading and carrying of coal, which put such car service into five classes, each class constituting a paragraph in itself and being followed by “and subject thereto in the order of priority.” Class 2 contained clauses (a), (b), (e), and (d), and at the end of the paragraph constituting class 2 there was this language: “Note. — It is not intended by this paragraph to give any priority as between clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) hereof.” Held, that the language at the conclusion of each of said five classes, “and subject thereto in the order of priority,” meant that each class stated in said car service order was to be given priority in the

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • postal authorities’ actions did not excuse appellant’s untimely filed bond where appellant selected agent and placed burden upon that agent to search out and find justice to deliver required bond for appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.