TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Platt v. City of New York

Platt, Treasurer of United States Express Company, v. City of New York; City of New York v. Platt, Treasurer of United States Express Company

Platt v. City of N.Y., 232 U.S. 35 (1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 5, 1914
Docket
Nos. 85 and 86
Judges
Hughes
Citations
232 U.S. 3534 S. Ct. 20958 L. Ed. 4921914 U.S. LEXIS 1457
Syllabus
Adams Express Co. v. New York, ante, p. 14, followed to the effect that certain municipal ordinances of the City of New York are void and unconstitutional as applied to the interstate commerce of express companies.
Summary
APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN' DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution of certain ordinances of the City of New York as applied to the interstate business of express companies, , are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion — Hughes

Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court.

" This suit was brought by the complainant as treasurer of the United States Express Company to restrain the enforcement against that company of certain license requirements contained in the ordinances of the City of New York. The ordinances are the same as those which were under consideration in Adams Express Co.

v. New York, decided this day, and the decree of the Circuit Court was to the same effect in both cases. 189 Fed. Rep. 268.

The United States Express Company is an unincorporated association organized under the laws of New York and is extensively engaged in interstate commerce as a common carrier of packages. Over ninety-eight per cent, of its total business in New York City consists of the handling of traffic in interstate transportation. The interstate shipments in New York City are hauled by the Company’s wagons to and from the rail terminals of the Central Railroad of New Jersey, the Lehigh Valley Railroad and the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, .all within the State of New Jersey. It employs in its business 343 express wagons of which 189 are stabled in and operated exclusively from Jersey City, New Jersey; 123 are similarly kept in Communipaw, New Jersey; and the remainder, or 31, are kept in the Borough of Manhattan. Uoth the local and interstate traffic are handled in these wagons indiscriminately. : The Company has never taken out any licenses in the City of New York for its wagons or drivers.

The questions are the same as those which were presented in Adams Express Co.

v. New York, supra, and a like *37 decree should be entered restraining the enforcement of the ordinances against the Company with respeqt to the conduct of its interstate business and its wagons and drivers employed in interstate commerce.

The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court With direction to enter a decree in favor of the complainant in conformity with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

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

1919: 11923: 11935: 11965: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cooney v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.294 U.S. 384 (1935)
  2. Commonwealth v. O'Neil124 N.E. 482 (Mass. 1919)
  3. State ex rel. Battle v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad143 S.E.2d 331 (W. Va. 1965)
  4. George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Maloy4 Balt. C. Rep. 179 (1923)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Battle v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad143 S.E.2d 331 (W. Va. 1965)
  2. Cooney v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.294 U.S. 384 (1935)
  3. George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Maloy4 Balt. C. Rep. 179 (1923)
  4. Commonwealth v. O'Neil124 N.E. 482 (Mass. 1919)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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