TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gilmore v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R.

Gilmore v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co.

Gilmore v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R., 67 Mo. 323 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1878
Judges
Norton
Citations
67 Mo. 323
Headnotes
The Texas Cattle Act Unconstitutional. The Texas Cattle Act, (1 Wag. Stat., p. 251, Sec. 1,) is in conflict with that provision of the constitution of the United States, which confers upon Congress the power to regulate inter-State commerce. (Const. United States, Art. 1, Sec. 8.)
Summary
Appeal from Bay Circuit Court. — Hon. George W. Dunn, Judge. cited Kenney v. H. § St. Jo. B. B. Co., 62 Mo. 476; Grurney v. H. § St. Jo. B. B. Co., 62 Mo. 476.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Norton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Norton, J.

This suit was instituted before a justice of the peace in Clinton county, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of the transportation of Texas cattle in the cars of defendant. The plaintiff obtained judgment before the justice, and also in the circuit court of Ray county, where the cause had been removed by change of venue, from which defendant has appealed to this court. The suit is founded on Sec. 1, Wag. Slat., 251, prohibiting the introduction of Texas, *324 Mexican or Indian cattle into the State, between tbe 1st day of March and 1st day of November, unless they had been kept the entire previous winter in the State, and rendered railroad companies transporting such cattle through the State, liable to damages resulting from Spanish or Texas fever occurring along the line 'of such transportation. The sole question presented to us, is the constitutionality of this act, and this ha3 been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 U. S. R. 465 , in which it is held that said section is obnoxious to that provision of the constitution of the United States, which declaims that “ Congress'shall have power 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.” The case before us is controlled by the principle decided in that case, and the judgment is reversed, in which all the judges concur.

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1881–1882: 21883–1884: 118812026peak 1881 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Urton v. Sherlock75 Mo. 247 (1881)
  2. State ex rel. Cantwell v. Stark75 Mo. 566 (1882)
  3. Bradford v. Floyd80 Mo. 207 (1883)

Most recent

  1. Bradford v. Floyd80 Mo. 207 (1883)
  2. State ex rel. Cantwell v. Stark75 Mo. 566 (1882)
  3. Urton v. Sherlock75 Mo. 247 (1881)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
R.R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465 (1878) 283

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list