Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME CQURT 0/ THE STATE OE' SOUTH CAROLINA. ' v . ERROR TO THE DISTRipT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ■ THE'EASTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH. CAROLINA. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS-FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. The facts, which involve the construction of the Dispensary Laws of South Carolina and rights of one claiming to have furnished supplies to the dispensaries, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McReynolds
These suits grew out of the legislation by which South Carolina sought to control traffic in liquors. They involve closely related matters, were heard .together, and. it will be convenient likewise -to dispose of them. In Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58; Vance v. Vandercook, 170 U. S. 438, and Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151, the history and general purposes of the legislation are considered'.
By act of 1892 the General Assembly created a State Board of Control, with power to supervise the traffic; also provided for a State Commissioner charged /with the duty of purchasing and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Scott v. DonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Union & Planters' Bank v. MemphisSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
3Cited by31 opinions
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. JacobsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co. of EmbdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Tomasek v. Oregon State Highway CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- Wagner Electric Manufacturing Co. v. LyndonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.