Southern Railway Company v. James Carson
Decision Date | 18 April 1904 |
Docket Number | No. 546,546 |
Citation | 48 L.Ed. 907,24 S.Ct. 609,194 U.S. 136 |
Parties | SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in err. , v. JAMES L. CARSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Carson, a resident of Greenville county, South Carolina, brought this suit in the court of common pleas of that county against the Southern Railway Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of the state of Virginia, and engaged in running trains through several states as a common carrier, and J. C. Arwood and J. D. Miller, residents of Greenville county, to recover damages for personal injuries, which, he charged in his complaint, 'were due to the joint and concurrent negligence, carelessness, and fault of the defendants, and to their joint and concurrent recklessness, carelessness, wilfulness, and wanton disregard of the plaintiff's rights and safety, in the following manner, to wit: 'joint and concurrent carelessness, negligence, recklessness,' etc., in particulars detailed.
Defendants severally demurred, the demurrers were overruled, and defendants excepted. Defendants then answered severally, in identical terms, denying all negligence on the part of defendant, and asserting 'that the plaintiff's alleged injury was the result of his own negligence.' Trial was had and the jury found for plaintiff, against the railway company, judgment was entered, and the railway company appealed to the supreme court of the state. That court affirmed the judgment (46 S. E. 525), and thereupon this writ of error was allowed.
Messrs. W. A. Henderson and T. P. Cothran for plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. Altheus Johnson for defendant in error.
Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller:
This case comes before us on motions to dismiss or affirm. There was certainly color for the motion to dismiss, as we retain jurisdiction with hesitation, and we will dispose of the case on the motion to affirm.
By some of the many exceptions preserved on the trial, and disposed of by the state supreme court, it was sought to raise Federal questions in respect of the acts of Congress (1) providing for the removal of cases from a state court to a court of the United States, and (2) providing that railroad companies engaged in interstate commerce shall equip their cars with automatic couplers.
1. The railway company did not at any time apply for the removal of the cases to the circuit court. Plaintiff below and the company's two codefendants were citizens of the same state, and the railway company did not make application to remove before trial on the ground of separable controversy or want of good faith in the joinder. Nor did it make such application when plaintiff's evidence was in, nor on the whole evidence. There was no suggestion throughout the trial that the joinder was in itself improperly made, but the contention, as exhibited by the exceptions, was that a verdict could not be rendered against the company alone, because, if it had been sued alone, it would have had the right of removal. The trial court charged that jury that if the proof failed to show joint and concurrent negligence on the part of all the defendants, yet showed negligence on the part of one or more of them, resulting in injury to plaintiff, as the sole and proximate cause thereof, the jury might find a verdict against such defendant or defendants as the proof showed were guilty of such negligence; and to this instruction the railway company preserved an exception.
The railway company also excepted to the refusal of the court to give several instructions asked on its behalf, to the effect that, as by the allegation of a joint and concurrent tort, the company had been deprived of the right to remove the cause, joint and concurrent tort must be made out against the company and at least one of the other defendants; that to allow plaintiff to recover without proof of joint and concurrent tort would deprive the company of the right of removal guaranteed by the Constitution and laws; and of its property without due process of law, in contravention of the 14th Amendment, in that the company would be deprived of the right of reimbursement which would otherwise exist. But these are matters upon the merits, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Abernathy
... ... Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and others, for ... damages for personal injury. Judgment ... brought against a railway company and its conductor, for the ... act of the latter ... 102, 39 Am.Dec. 437; Sou. Ry. Co ... v. Carson, 194 U.S. 136, 24 Sup.Ct. 609, 48 L.Ed. 907; ... s.c., 68 ... "I should certainly agree with Southern Ry. Co. v ... Arnold, 162 Ala. 570 [[[50 So. 293]. In ... ...
-
McAllister v. Terminal Railway Co.
...of cars and diligence in discovering and repairing defects is no defense. [Carter v. Railroad Co., 307 Mo. 595, l.c. 605; Southern Railroad Co. v. Carson, 194 U.S. 136; Delk v. St. Louis & S.F. Railroad Co., 220 U.S. 580; St. Louis & S.F. Railroad Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243; Philadelphia ......
-
Johnson v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
...As is said in Cooley, Torts, 145, quoted with approval, not only in the Supreme Court of the United States (Southern R. Co. v. Carson, 194 U. S. 136, 24 S. Ct. 609, 48 L. Ed. 907), but in the Supreme Court of this state (Schumpert v. Railroad Co., 65 S. C. 332, 43 S. E. 813, 95 Am. St. Rep.......
-
McAllister v. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal Ry. Co.
...cars and diligence in discovering and repairing defects is no defense. [Carter v. Railroad Co., 307 Mo. 595, l. c. 605; Southern Railroad Co. v. Carson, 194 U.S. 136; Delk v. St. Louis & S. F. Railroad Co., 220 580; St. Louis & S. F. Railroad Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243; Philadelphia & R. ......