Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Davis v. Henderson

266 U.S. 92· 1924· U.S. Supreme Court· cites 3 cases
266 U.S. 92 (1924) DAVIS, AGENT, v. HENDERSON. No. 44. Supreme Court of United States. Submitted October 8, 1924. Decided October 27, 1924. ERROR AND CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. Mr. A.A. McLaughlin, Mr. Thomas B. Pryor and Mr. Vincent M. Miles, for plaintiff in error and petitioner. No brief filed for defendant in error and respondent. *93 MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court. Henderson, a shipper of cattle, brought this suit in a state court of Arkansas against an interstate carrier then under federal control. The cause of action alleged was failure to furnish a car within a reasonable time after notice. The carrier defended on the ground that the shipper had not complied with a rule, approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and contained in its tariff, which provided that orders for cars must be placed with the local agent in writing. Written notice was not given. The plaintiff was permitted to testify that he had notified the station agent orally and that the latter had accepted his oral notice. The trial court refused to instruct the jury that the shipper could not recover without proving a notice in writing. Exceptions were duly taken. The plaintiff got the verdict; and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the highest court of the State. 157 Ark. 43 . The carrier brought this writ of error; and, also, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, consideration of which was postponed until the hearing on the writ of error. The former must be dismissed. Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726. The writ of certiorari is now granted. There is no claim that the rule requiring written notice was void. The contention is that the rule was waived. It could not be. The transportation service to be performed was that of common carrier under published tariffs. The rule was a part of the tariff. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190 , 197; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Ward, 244 U.S. 383 , 388; Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U.S. 560 , 562. Writ of Error dismissed. Writ of Certiorari granted. Judgment reversed.

Public-domain opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reproduced from the court record (U.S. Reports). Historical text may contain OCR artifacts. Provided for reference — not legal advice.

★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.