The Missouri, Kansas Texas Railway Company of Texas v. Mollie Ferris
Decision Date | 24 December 1900 |
Docket Number | No. 349,349 |
Citation | 21 S.Ct. 231,179 U.S. 602,45 L.Ed. 337 |
Parties | THE MISSOURI, KANSAS, & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS, Plff. in Err. , v. MOLLIE F. FERRIS, Mattie Lee, Sam. Richard Ferris, Price Franklin Ferris, Mina Katie Ferris, Millie Caldona Ferris, Henry Cordell Ferris, Dovie Emeline Ferris, and Lovie Eveline Ferris |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action commenced in the District Court of Bastrop County, Texas, on January 31, 1899, by the defendants in error, as plaintiffs, to recover damages sustained by the death of their father, charged to have been occasioned through the negligence of the railway company. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, it was taken on appeal to the court of civil appeals for the third supreme judicial district of the state of Texas, and by that court affirmed. An application to the supreme court of the state for a writ of error having been denied, this writ of error was sued out.
The case presents these facts: An act of the legislature of the state of Texas, passed February 15, 1858, appearing in chapter 3, title 40, Revised Statutes of 1895, in the following sections reads:
On April 22, 1897, this amendment was made:
'Where either party to any suit is a corporation, neither party thereto shall be permitted to take ex parte depositions.' Tex. Gen. Laws 1897, p. 117.
Prior to the trial an effort was made to take the testimony of two of the plaintiffs, Sam Ferris and Frank Ferris, the one fourteen years of age and the other twelve years of age. Interrogatories were prepared by the defendant, and the clerk of the court was designated as the officer to take the depositions. On the trial he testified in substance that he went to the place where the boys were living with their uncle; that the uncle refused to permit them to be questioned, though neither of the boys was asked any question or declined to answer any interrogatory. He further testifies that the uncle 'told me that he had seen no attorney; . . . that he would bring the boys to town that afternoon to see their attorneys, and then if there was no objection Judge Garwood (counsel for defendant) could ask them what he wanted to.'
The trial court overruled the motion of defendant to take the interrogatories confessed as against the two plaintiffs.
Mr. H. M. Garwood for plaintiff in error.
Mr. John W. Parker for defendants in error.
This case is before us on a motion to dismiss or affirm. The parties being citizens of the same state, the jurisdiction of this court is invoked on the alleged ground of a Federal question. It is contended that the amendment of April 22, 1897, which takes away, in cases in which a corporation is a party on either side, the right to preliminary ex parte depositions, is in conflict with the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, inasmuch as it is unwarranted class legislation, and denies the equal protection of the laws.
If we examine the opinion of the court of civil appeals, or the proceedings in the supreme court of the state, we find no reference to that question. It either was not called to the attention of those tribunals or was unnoticed by them. Turning to the record of the trial in the district court it appears that when the interrogatories were presented, together with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bays v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary
...472, 477 (1990). "Moot questions require no answer." North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971), quoting Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. Ferris, 179 U.S. 602, 606 (1900). Mootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstractpr......
-
Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle
...227, 240-241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). However, `moot questions require no answer.\' Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. Ferris, 179 U.S. 602, 606, 21 S.Ct. 231, 45 L.Ed. 337 (1900). Mootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court `is not empowered to decide moot questions ......
-
Torres v. O'quinn
...751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). Likewise, because “[m]oot questions require no answer,” Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. v. Ferris, 179 U.S. 602, 606, 21 S.Ct. 231, 45 L.Ed. 337 (1900), federal courts “[are] not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions,” California v. San......
-
Firewalker-Fields v. Lee
...claim under RLUIPA is moot. See Rendelman v. Rouse , 569 F.3d 182, 186–87 (4th Cir. 2009) ; see also Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. v. Ferris , 179 U.S. 602, 606, 21 S.Ct. 231, 45 L.Ed. 337 (1900) ("Moot questions require no answer."). The district court therefore properly dismissed the RLUIPA claims......