Mexican Light & Power Co., LTD. v. Texas Mexican Railway Co. (331 U.S. 731)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 16, 1947 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 331 U.S. 731 · 67 S. Ct. 1440
- Docket
- No. 404
- Argued
- February 6, 1947
- Decided
- June 16, 1947
- Term
- October Term 1946
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Frankfurter
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Justice Black, Justice Frankfurter (wrote), Justice Douglas, Justice Murphy, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Rutledge, Justice Burton
- Dissenting
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Reed (wrote)
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action to recover damages for injury to goods in the course of an export shipment by rail. The Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company delivered to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company in Sharon, Pennsylvania, goods ultimately destined for the Mexican Light and Power Company. According to the bill of lading issued by the Pennsylvania Railroad the goods were consigned to The Mexican Light & Power Co. Ltd., c/o Fausto Trevino, Customs Agent, (National Railways of Mexico). The destination was Laredo, Texas, with the further notation “For Export to: El Oro, Estado de Mexico via Acambaro via Laredo.” The transportation charges were prepaid at the export rate, less than the domestic, and they covered shipment not merely into Laredo but up to the international boundary. The Texas-Mexican Railway was the last of the series of connecting carriers over which the machinery was routed by the Pennsylvania. The former, having received the shipment at Alice, Texas, continued the carriage to its yards at Laredo. At Laredo, there was issued to Fausto Trevino, the agent, what formally appears to be a bill of lading consigning the shipment to petitioner at El Oro. The record is silent as to the circumstances that brought this document into existence, but it is admitted that the respondent received no payment for…
Excerpt of a 7,897-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.