Lloyd Fry Roofing Company v. Wood

Petitioner manufactures in Tennessee products which it sends in trucks to customers in nearby states. Finding that driver-owners carrying those products in Arkansas, who allegedly had leased their vehicles to petitioner, were in reality transporting petitioner's goods as "contract carriers" for which a state Act required a permit, the State Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's bill praying that enforcement of the Act be enjoined. Neither petitioner nor the drivers had obtained any kind of authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission. Held:

1. The finding of the State Supreme Court that the driver-owners were in reality transporting petitioners goods as contract carriers is not without factual foundation and is accepted by this, Court. Pp. 159–160.

2. The State's requirement of a permit in such circumstances is not an undue, burden on interstate commerce, and does not conflict with the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. nor with the Federal Motor Carrier Act. Pp. 161–163.

3. Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, distinguished. Pp. 161–162.

4. It is unnecessary here to consider apprehended burdensome conditions which the State has not attempted to enforce. Pp. 162–163.

5. The State is not without power to require interstate motor carriers to identify themselves as users of the State's highways. P. 163.

219 Ark. 553, 244 S.W.2d 147, affirmed.

In an action brought by petitioner in an Arkansas state court to enjoin enforcement of the Arkansas Motor Carrier Act, the State Supreme Court ordered dismissal of the bill. 219 Ark. 553, 244 S.W.2d 147. This Court granted certiorari. 343 U.S. 962. Affirmed, p. 163.

[p158] Glenn M. Elliott argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was James W. Wrape.

John R. Thompson and Eugene R. Warren submitted on brief for respondents.