Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Cade
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE JUSTICE COURT, PRECINCT NO. 7, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. The facts, which involve the construction and constitutionality under the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Texas of 1909 imposing an attorney’s fee on the defeated defendant in certain classes of cases, are stated in the opinion. The act is void because in conflict with the due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE JUSTICE COURT, PRECINCT NO. 7, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. The facts, which involve the construction and constitutionality under the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Texas of 1909 imposing an attorney’s fee on the defeated defendant in certain classes of cases, are stated in the opinion. The act is void because in conflict with the due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The act is in part a regulation of, a burden upon and an interference with interstate commerce, contrary to subd. 3, § 8, Art. I, Constitution of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Pitney
This action was brought in the Justice Court to recover the sum of ten dollars and seventy-five cents alleged to be due as wages from the defendant (now plaintiff in error) to the plaintiff below, with an attorney’s fee of nine dollars. The fee was claimed only by virtue of an act of the legislature, approved March 13,1909, Laws, p. 93, now forming Arts. 2178 and 2179, Texas Rev. Civ. Stat. 1911. Defendant specially excepted to. this part of plaintiff’s claim, on the ground that the act was invalid as constituting a burden upon interstate commerce, contrary to the Commerce Clause of the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Orient Insurance v. DaggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. MatthewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. HumesSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by124 opinions
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- New York Central Railroad Company v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Hendrick v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Coppage v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Dohany v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
119 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.