The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 56

[894] Merrick _v._ Halsey & Co., 242 U.S. 568 (1917). _See also_ Hall _v._ Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539 (1917); Caldwell _v._ Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co., 242 U.S. 559 (1917).

[895] Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. _v._ Illinois ex rel.

McLaughlin, 298 U.S. 155 (1936), citing Cargill Co. _v._ Minnesota, 180 U.S. 452, 470 (1901); Simpson _v._ Shepard (Minnesota Rate Case), 230 U.S. 352, 410 (1913); Hall _v._ Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539, 557 (1917); Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. _v._ McLean, 291 U.S. 17 (1934).

[896] Davis _v._ Cleveland, C.C. & St. L. Co., 217 U.S. 157 (1910).

[897] Martin _v._ West, 222 U.S. 191 (1911).

[898] The "Winnebago," 205 U.S. 354, 362 (1907).

[899] Justice Hughes for the Court in Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson _v._ Shepard), 230 U.S. 352, 406 (1913).

[900] Ibid. 408.

[901] Railroad Co. _v._ Husen, 95 U.S. 465 (1878).

[902] Kimmish _v._ Ball, 129 U.S. 217 (1889).

[903] Smith _v._ St. Louis & S.W.R. Co., 181 U.S. 248 (1901).

[904] Ibid. 255. Morgan's S.S. Co. _v._ Louisiana Bd. of Health, 118 U.S. 455 (1886) is cited.

[905] Hebe Co. _v._ Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919).

[906] Hygrade Provision Co. _v._ Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 (1925).

[907] Mintz _v._ Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (1933).

[908] Pacific States Box & Basket Co. _v._ White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935).

[909] Bayside Fish Flour Co. _v._ Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).

[910] Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. _v._ Agnew, 300 U.S. 608 (1937).

[911] Bourjois, Inc. _v._ Chapman, 301 U.S. 183 (1937).

[912] Clason _v._ Indiana, 306 U.S. 439 (1939).

[913] Milk Control Bd. _v._ Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346 (1939).

[914] Patapsco Guano Co. _v._ North Carolina, 171 U.S. 345 (1898).

[915] Savage _v._ Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912); followed in Corn Products Refining Co. _v._ Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 (1919).

[916] Pure Oil Co. _v._ Minnesota, 248 U.S. 158 (1918).

[917] Mutual Film Corp. _v._ Hodges, 236 U.S. 248 (1915).

[918] Minnesota _v._ Barber, 136 U.S. 313 (1890); _see also_ Brimmer _v._ Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891).

[919] 136 U.S. at 322. _See also_ pp. 328-329.

[920] Voight _v._ Wright, 141 U.S. 62 (1891).

[921] Hale _v._ Bimco Trading Co., 306 U.S. 375 (1939).

[922] Dean Milk Co. _v._ Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951).

[923] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[924] Ibid. 449.

[925] Woodruff _v._ Parham, 8 Wall. 123 (1869). There were later some departures from the rule, apparently due to inattention, in cases involving oil. _See_ Standard Oil _v._ Graves, 249 U.S. 389 (1919); Askren _v._ Continental Oil Co., 252 U.S. 444 (1920); Bowman _v._ Continental Oil Co., 256 U.S. 642 (1921) and Texas Co. _v._ Brown, 258 U.S. 466 (1922). These cases were "qualified," and in fact disavowed in Sonneborn Bros. _v._ Cureton, 262 U.S. 506, 520 (1923). _Cf._ the contemporary case of Wagner _v._ Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1912) where the true rule is followed.

[926] Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).

[927] Kidd _v._ Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888).

[928] 125 U.S. 465 (1888).

[929] Leisy & Co. _v._ Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890).

[930] 26 Stat. 313 (1890); sustained in In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545 (1891).

[931] Rhodes _v._ Iowa, 170 U.S. 412 (1898).

[932] 37 Stat. 699 (1913); sustained in Clark Distilling Co. _v._ Western Md. Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311 (1917).

[933] Austin _v._ Tennessee, 179 U.S. 343 (1900).

[934] 155 U.S. 461 (1894).

[935] 135 U.S. 100 (1890).

[936] 155 U.S. at 474.

[937] Schollenberger _v._ Pennsylvania, 171 U.S. 1 (1898).

[938] Collins _v._ New Hamps.h.i.+re, 171 U.S. 30 (1898).

[939] _See_ note 1 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 933, above.]

[940] State Board _v._ Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59 (1936); Finch & Co. _v._ McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395 (1939); Brewing Co. _v._ Liquor Comm'n., 305 U.S. 391 (1939); Ziffrin, Inc. _v._ Reeves, 308 U.S. 132 (1939).

[941] Duckworth _v._ Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390 (1941); followed in Carter _v._ Virginia, 321 U.S. 131 (1944). Justice Jackson would have preferred to rest the decision on the Twenty-first Amendment instead of "what I regard as an unwise extension of State power over interstate commerce,"

314 U.S. at 397; and appears to have converted Justice Frankfurter.

_See_ latter's opinion in 321 U.S. at 139-143.