Interstate Commerce. What Constitutes Interstate Commerce. Breaking of Original Package by Agent for Delivery

Download Interstate Commerce. What Constitutes Interstate Commerce. Breaking of Original Package by Agent for Delivery

Post on 10-Jan-2017

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Interstate Commerce. What Constitutes Interstate Commerce. Breaking of Original Packageby Agent for DeliverySource: Harvard Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Feb., 1911), p. 324Published by: The Harvard Law Review AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1324082 .Accessed: 20/05/2014 20:04

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

    .

    The Harvard Law Review Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHarvard Law Review.

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded from 193.105.154.131 on Tue, 20 May 2014 20:04:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=harvardlawhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1324082?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • HARVARD LAW REVIEW. HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

    intercourse. This may be shown by the fact that cohabitation without marital intercourse does not necessarily amount to condonation. Guthrie v. Guthrie, 26 Mo. App. 566. See 2 BISHOP, MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND SEPARATION, ? 280. And Mr. Bishop even contends that on principle refusal of copulation should be ground for divorce for desertion. See I BISHOP, MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND SEPARATION, ?? 1676-1683. But in this position he is not supported by au- thority. Southwick v. Southwick, 97 Mass. 327.

    HUSBAND AND WIFE - RIGHTS OF WIFE AGAINST HUSBAND AND IN HIS SEPA- RATE PROPERTY- RIGHT TO BE REIMBURSED FOR EXPENDITURES FOR NECES- SARIES. -The plaintiff, a married woman, having been abandoned by her husband without just cause, and being unable to procure necessaries on his credit, purchased them with the proceeds of her labor and of her separate estate. She sought to recover from her husband the amount so expended. Held, that the plaintiff can recover, being subrogated to the rights of the persons who furnished the necessaries. De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, 44 N. Y. L. J., Nov. 191o (N. Y. Sup. Ct.). See NOTES, p. 306.

    INTERSTATE COMMERCE - CONTROL BY STATES- REGULATION OF RATES OF INTERSTATE FERRIES.--A New Jersey statute of 1799 empowered the boards of freeholders to fix the fares to be charged at ferry stations within their respective counties. The board of Hudson County fixed the rates to be taken by ferries plying between that county and New York City. Held, that the rates are valid. Port Richmond &' Bergen Point Ferry Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 77 Atl. I046 (N. J., Sup. Ct.).

    This case differs in its facts from that commented upon in 23 HARV. L. REV. 484 only as involving a New York instead of a New Jersey ferry corporation, its charter permitting a higher charge than that fixed by the freeholders.

    INTERSTATE COMMERCE -WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE COMMERCE- BREAKING OF ORIGINAL PACKAGE BY AGENT FOR DELIVERY.- A corporation sent a box, containing various packages, from a foreign state to the defendant, to deliver the packages to customers whom the defendant had procured. The defendant opened the box and delivered the packages. Certain food commod- ities were under weight, and the defendant was prosecuted by the state for violating the state pure food laws in delivering them. Held, that the defendant was engaged in interstate commerce and so not subject to the state laws. State v. Eckenrode, 127 N. W. 56 (Ia.).

    Courts still make the test of the termination of an interstate shipment whether the original package has been broken, yet they are hedging the rule about with limitations. The doctrine is wholly abrogated as to the taxation of goods shipped from another state. American Steel &" Wire Co. v. Speed, I92 U. S. 500. If the size of the package is reduced below normal for the purpose of evading state regulation the shipment is held not subject to the rule. Austin v. Tennessee, I79 U. S. 343. See I8 HARV. L. REV. 530. The principal case illustrates another such exception. Where separate packages are combined in a bundle this latter is the original package. May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496. Yet where such bundle is sent to an agent who breaks and delivers the separate packages to previous purchasers the shipment is held not terminated until actual delivery. The result would be different if the consignee, upon breaking the package, were free to dispose of the individual articles as he chose. The principal case seems sound, as the agent is merely assisting in a continuous shipment to the purchaser. Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507. These arbitrary exceptions to the original-package doctrine show its unsoundness as a hard and fast rule, and that it is becoming merely one of the factors to be con- sidered in determining whether a shipment is terminated.

    intercourse. This may be shown by the fact that cohabitation without marital intercourse does not necessarily amount to condonation. Guthrie v. Guthrie, 26 Mo. App. 566. See 2 BISHOP, MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND SEPARATION, ? 280. And Mr. Bishop even contends that on principle refusal of copulation should be ground for divorce for desertion. See I BISHOP, MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND SEPARATION, ?? 1676-1683. But in this position he is not supported by au- thority. Southwick v. Southwick, 97 Mass. 327.

    HUSBAND AND WIFE - RIGHTS OF WIFE AGAINST HUSBAND AND IN HIS SEPA- RATE PROPERTY- RIGHT TO BE REIMBURSED FOR EXPENDITURES FOR NECES- SARIES. -The plaintiff, a married woman, having been abandoned by her husband without just cause, and being unable to procure necessaries on his credit, purchased them with the proceeds of her labor and of her separate estate. She sought to recover from her husband the amount so expended. Held, that the plaintiff can recover, being subrogated to the rights of the persons who furnished the necessaries. De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, 44 N. Y. L. J., Nov. 191o (N. Y. Sup. Ct.). See NOTES, p. 306.

    INTERSTATE COMMERCE - CONTROL BY STATES- REGULATION OF RATES OF INTERSTATE FERRIES.--A New Jersey statute of 1799 empowered the boards of freeholders to fix the fares to be charged at ferry stations within their respective counties. The board of Hudson County fixed the rates to be taken by ferries plying between that county and New York City. Held, that the rates are valid. Port Richmond &' Bergen Point Ferry Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 77 Atl. I046 (N. J., Sup. Ct.).

    This case differs in its facts from that commented upon in 23 HARV. L. REV. 484 only as involving a New York instead of a New Jersey ferry corporation, its charter permitting a higher charge than that fixed by the freeholders.

    INTERSTATE COMMERCE -WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE COMMERCE- BREAKING OF ORIGINAL PACKAGE BY AGENT FOR DELIVERY.- A corporation sent a box, containing various packages, from a foreign state to the defendant, to deliver the packages to customers whom the defendant had procured. The defendant opened the box and delivered the packages. Certain food commod- ities were under weight, and the defendant was prosecuted by the state for violating the state pure food laws in delivering them. Held, that the defendant was engaged in interstate commerce and so not subject to the state laws. State v. Eckenrode, 127 N. W. 56 (Ia.).

    Courts still make the test of the termination of an interstate shipment whether the original package has been broken, yet they are hedging the rule about with limitations. The doctrine is wholly abrogated as to the taxation of goods shipped from another state. American Steel &" Wire Co. v. Speed, I92 U. S. 500. If the size of the package is reduced below normal for the purpose of evading state regulation the shipment is held not subject to the rule. Austin v. Tennessee, I79 U. S. 343. See I8 HARV. L. REV. 530. The principal case illustrates another such exception. Where separate packages are combined in a bundle this latter is the original package. May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496. Yet where such bundle is sent to an agent who breaks and delivers the separate packages to previous purchasers the shipment is held not terminated until actual delivery. The result would be different if the consignee, upon breaking the package, were free to dispose of the individual articles as he chose. The principal case seems sound, as the agent is merely assisting in a continuous shipment to the purchaser. Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507. These arbitrary exceptions to the original-package doctrine show its unsoundness as a hard and fast rule, and that it is becoming merely one of the factors to be con- sidered in determining whether a shipment is terminated.

    324 324

    This content downloaded from 193.105.154.131 on Tue, 20 May 2014 20:04:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    Article Contentsp. 324

    Issue Table of ContentsHarvard Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Feb., 1911), pp. 253-332Corporate Personality [pp. 253 - 267]Administrative Exercise of the Police Power [pp. 268 - 289]The Seventeenth Century Indictment in the Light of Modern Conditions [pp. 290 - 297]The Decadence of the System of Precedent [pp. 298 - 305]NotesHusband's Duty to Reimburse Wife for Expenditures for Necessaries [pp. 306 - 307]May State of Domicile Tax Gifts Made Abroad When the Property Is Located Abroad [pp. 307 - 309]Apportionment of an Annuity between Capital and Income [pp. 309 - 311]Restrictions upon the Vendor of Good Will [pp. 311 - 312]Habit as Evidence of an Act [pp. 312 - 313]Quo Warranto and Mandamus for Offices at Will [pp. 313 - 315]The Nature of the Right in a Dead Body [pp. 315 - 316]

    Recent CasesAdverse Possession. Who May Gain Title. Wife against Husband [pp. 316 - 317]Bankruptcy. Involuntary Proceedings. When Debtor Must Owe $1000 [p. 317]Bankruptcy. Property Passing to Trustee. Life Insurance Policies [pp. 317 - 318]Conflict of Laws. Personal Jurisdiction. Statute Authorizing Service out of Jurisdiction [p. 318]Constitutional Law. Privileges and Immunities: Class Legislation. County Ordinance Prohibiting Fishing by Non-Residents [pp. 318 - 319]Corporations. Foreign Corporations. Jurisdiction over Internal Affairs [p. 319]Costs. Liability of Infant to Indemnify Next Friend [pp. 319 - 320]Criminal Law. Appeal. Sentence Increased on Appeal [p. 320]Dangerous Premises. Liability to Trespassers. Injury by Vicious Animal [pp. 320 - 321]Death by Wrongful Act. Damages in Statutory Action. Right of Wife Not Supported by Husband to Sue for His Death [p. 321]Divorce. Defenses. Delay [pp. 321 - 322]Electric Wires. Application of the Principle of Fletcher v. Rylands [p. 322]Evidence. General Principles and Rules of Exclusion. Irrelevancy: Violation of Municipal Ordinance [pp. 322 - 323]Homicide. Responsibility for Death Caused by Fright [p. 323]Husband and Wife. Contracts between Husband and Wife. Validity of Separation Agreements [pp. 323 - 324]Interstate Commerce. What Constitutes Interstate Commerce. Breaking of Original Package by Agent for Delivery [p. 324]Joint Wrongdoers. Contribution [p. 325]Legacies and Devises. Payment. Interest by Way of Maintenance [p. 325]Malicious Prosecution. Basis of Action. Malicious Procuring of Injunction [pp. 325 - 326]Mechanics' Liens. Effect of Stop Notice When Contractor Subsequently Defaults [pp. 326 - 327]Receivers. Liability of Foreign Receiver of Insolvent Corporation for Franchise Tax [p. 327]Rescission. Rescission for Fraud or Mistake. Representations Made Through Mercantile Agency [p. 327]Sales. Time of Passing of Title. Cash Sales: Waiver of the Condition by Delivery [p. 328]Suretyship. Surety's Defenses: Absence, Extinction, or Suspension of the Principal Obligation. Estoppel [p. 328]Waters and Watercourses. Appropriation. Beneficial Use [p. 329]Wills. Undue Influence. Burden of Proof [p. 329]

    Book Reviewsuntitled [pp. 330 - 332]

Recommended

View more >