Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY v. KENTUCKY, 1907 — 206 U.S. 138 · caselaw · US
General
ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY v. KENTUCKY
206 U.S. 13851 L. Ed. 992·Supreme Court of the United States·1907
Mr. Justice Harlan dissented. See p. 141, post.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY v. KENTUCKY.
ERROR TO-THE COURT OP APPEALS OF THE STATE OP KENTUCKY.
No. 332.
Argued April 17, 18, 1907.
Decided May 13, 1907.
Decided on authority of Adams Express Company v. Kentucky, ante, p. 129.
The facts are stated'in the-opinion.
Mr. Lawrence Maxwell Jr., and. Mr. Edmund F. Trdbue, with whom Mr. Joseph S. Graydon was on the brief,' for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Napoleon B. Hays, Attorney General of the State of Kentucky, with whom Mr. Charles H. Morris was on the brief, for defendant in error.
For abstracts of arguments see ante,-p. 131 et sec[.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Brewer]
Mr. Justice Brewer
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case differs from the preceding in the fact that it was tried by the court without a jury. In all other respects.’it is substantially the same. There was the same averment in the indictment; and more than that, there was an express stipulation made between counsel pending the trial in these words:
“It is further agreed at this point that the whiskey' about which Jhe witness testified was delivered by the Adams Express Company and received by it in its office in Cincinnati .in the usual course of business as a common carrier, and carried by it to' Barbourville, Kentucky, by the method commonly known.as C. O. D.”
There is nothing, therefore, to distinguish this case in principle from the preceding, and- the same judgment will be entered in this,as in that.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissented. See p. 141, post.