Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO, THE’ COURT 'OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE SECOND-‘-SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. The facts are stated in the opinion. If an act of Congress gives a right to a party aggrieved without' specifying a remedy, it might be enforced in a state court; but, if a right is conferred by statute and a specific remedy, provided, or a new power and means of execution granted, the right can be enforced only in the mode provided in the act.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO, THE’ COURT 'OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE SECOND-‘-SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. The facts are stated in the opinion. If an act of Congress gives a right to a party aggrieved without' specifying a remedy, it might be enforced in a state court; but, if a right is conferred by statute and a specific remedy, provided, or a new power and means of execution granted, the right can be enforced only in the mode provided in the act. A party who seeks damages alleged to have been sustained in consequence of a violation by a common carrier of the' Interstate Commerce Law, as the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice White
The oil company, the defendant in error, sued to recover $1,951.83. It was alleged that on shipments of carloads of cotton seed made in September and October, 1901, over the line of the defendant’s road from various points in Louisiana east of Alexandria, in that State, to Abilene, Texas, the carrier had exacted,. over the protest of the oil company, on the delivery of the cotton seed, the payment of an unjust and unreasonable rate, which exceeded.in the aggregate, by the sum sued for, a just and reasonable charge.. There were, moreover, averments that the rate exacted was discriminatory,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. MuggSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. HefleySupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,045 opinions
- Yakus v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. Western Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- United States v. Philadelphia National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
1,040 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.