Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-219

Opinion No. 219 Interstate Commerce-Federal Regula- tion-Intrastate Commerce. HELD: That when an article is de- livered to a carrier in one state fOl' de- livery at a point in another state such article retains its character as an ar- ticle of interstate commerce, subject to the regulation of the "Act to Regulate Commerce" of the Federal Government until it reaches and is delh'ered at its ultimate destination and this is true even though it may be handled by \'arious carriers and under numerous eon tracts in transit. May 23, 1933. You ha\'e requested an opinion from this office as to when goods trucked into this state from another state lose their status as an article of interstate commerce and take on the character of nn article of intrastate commerce. 'Vhen an article is delivered to a carrier in one state for transportation into another state such article becomes an article of interstate commerce and it retains that character until it reaches it>; Ultimate point of delivery, regard- less of "rests," change of carriers, or numerous contracts between the shipper and ca rrier or carriers. "It cannot be that the mere method of accomplishing the object in view when freight is delivered to an initial carrier, whether by a through routing contract, the transit to be by way of nn initial and successive lines, includ- ing a terminal switching company serv- ice, or by successive connecting con- tracts, each in order from the first heing authorized to make the one suc- ceeding, determines the character of the cominerce as to whether inter or intra state as regards the last move- ment required to reach the unloading point. The character of the initial con- tract is doubtless. evidentiary of the purpose of the shipper; but it does not control to make a subject of interstate intrasta te commerce. The purpose, in starting the freight, not. the particular method of executing it, controls. In other words, the service sought at the start. all of it, the initial and succes- sh'e elements connected to form the whole, settles the matter." "Sen'ice that is performed wholly in one sta te is still subject to the Federal Act to Regulate Commerce if it is a part of interstate commerce. • • • The character of the service rendered in re- gard to carriage of interstate freight and not the manner in which goods are biJIed determines whether the 'com- merce is interstate or not." (Duluth- Superior Milling Co., v. N. P. Ry. Co., 140 N. W. 1105.) "It is the essential character of the commerce, not the accident of local or through bills of lading, which deter- mines Federal or state control there- O\·er. • * • Commerce takes its char- acter as interstate * * • when it is actually started in the course of trans- poration to another state, * • • Rail- road Commission v. Texas Pacific, 229 U. S. 336, and retains its character as an article of interstate commerce to its destination." (U. S. v. Union Stock Yards, etc., 226 U. S. 286.) 'l'hese are only two of numerous de- cisions to the same effect. The rule is established beyond question that when an article is delivered to a carrier in one state for delivery at a point in another state such article retains its character as an article of interstate commerce, subject to the regulation of the "Act to Regulate Commerce" of the I<'ederal Government until it reaches and is delivered at its Ultimate desti- nation and this is true even though it IlIay be handled by various carriers and under numerous contracts in transit.