Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.

Black and White Taxicab and Transfer Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Company, 276 U.S. 518 (1928), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to hold that federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply state common law. Ten years later, in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Court reversed course, and overturned Swift v. Tyson.

Black and White Taxicab and Transfer Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Company
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 13, 16, 1928 Decided April 9, 1928
Full case name	Black and White Taxicab and Transfer Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Company
Citations	276 U.S. 518 (more) 48 S. Ct. 404; 72 L. Ed. 681
Case history
Prior	Judgment for plaintiff, W.D. Ky.; affirmed, 15 F.2d 509 (C.C.A. 6th 1926); cert. granted, 273 U.S. 690 (1927)
Holding
In suit in federal court to restrain interference with railroad's contract granting exclusive privileges to plaintiff taxicab company in soliciting patronage at depot, federal courts are not bound by Kentucky decisions that such contracts are invalid, since, in determining questions of general law, federal courts are free to exercise their own independent judgment. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice William H. Taft Associate Justices Oliver W. Holmes Jr. · Willis Van Devanter James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis George Sutherland · Pierce Butler Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
Majority	Butler, joined by Taft, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, Sanford
Dissent	Holmes, joined by Brandeis, Stone
Overruled by
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

It is most famous for the dissent of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Case details

Brown and Yellow Cab Company, a Kentucky corporation, sought to create a business association with the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, where Brown and Yellow would have a monopoly on soliciting passengers of the railroad station in Bowling Green, Kentucky, effectively eliminating the competition, the Black and White Cab Co. Such an agreement was illegal under Kentucky common law, as interpreted by Kentucky's highest court. Brown and Yellow dissolved itself, reincorporated in Tennessee, and executed the agreement there, where such an agreement was legal, bringing suit against Black and White in a Kentucky federal court to prevent them from soliciting passengers. The federal court upheld the agreement, citing Swift, and arguing that under general federal common law, the agreement was valid.

See also

• Erie doctrine

External links

• Works related to Black and White Taxicab Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab Company at Wikisource
• Text of Black and White Taxicab Co. v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab Co., 276 U.S. 518 (1928) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress