Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Messina

Decision Date06 March 1916
Docket NumberNo. 535,535
Citation240 U.S. 395,60 L.Ed. 709,36 S.Ct. 368
PartiesILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, and J. B. Boothe et al., Their Sureties, Plffs. in Err., v. V. P. MESSINA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. R. V. Fletcher, Blewett Lee, and Edward Mayes for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Harry Peyton and William H. Watkins for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action for personal injuries suffered by the defendant in error while upon a train running from Mississippi to Tennessee. He had paid no fare, but was upon the tender, as he said, by permission of the engineer. The engineer had notice that the water was high between Beatty and Sawyer and over the track at Sawyer. After passing Beatty the train was going at a rate variously put as 35 to 50 or 60 miles an hour when it ran into the water and was thrown from the track. The plaintiff was caught between the tender and a car and badly hurt.

The plaintiff got a judgment for $10,000, which was sustained by the supreme court. At the trial the jury were instructed that the defendant railroad was presumed to be negligent, and that if the evidence left it doubtful, it was their duty to find full damages for the plaintiff. The judge refused to instruct them that the engineer had no authority to permit the plaintiff to ride on the train 'at the place he was in,' but the request for this instruction was based upon the company's rules, not upon the act to regulate commerce. The supreme court, however, discussed the act of Congress and held that it did not apply to the case.

By § 1 of the act, as amended by the act of June 29, 1906, chap. 3591, 34 Stat. at L. 584, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8563, and still in force, any common carrier violating the provisions against free transportation is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a penalty, and any person other than those excepted 'who uses any such interstate . . . free transportation' is made subject to a like penalty. No doubt the enactment had somewhat more formal uses especially in view, but we see no reason for limiting the prohibition to them. The word 'such' like 'said' seems to us to indicate no more than that free transportation had been mentioned before. We cannot think that if a prominent merchant or official should board a train and by assumption and an air of importance should obtain free carriage, he would escape the act. We are of opinion therefore that the act was construed wrongly. Assuming, as it has been assumed, that the defendant's liability was governed otherwise by state law, it seems doubtful under the state decisions whether the plaintiff would have been allowed to recover had the court been of opinion that the act of Congress made his presence on the train illegal. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. McLaurin, —Miss. ——, L.R.A.1915C, 487, 66 So. 739. And although there are expressions in the opinion below that raise a doubt, the fact that the supreme court thought it necessary to construe the act indicates that the construction was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • U.S. v. Seals
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 10, 1998
  • U.S. v. Williams, 06-15318.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • May 16, 2008
  • Hartford Accident & Indeminity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 29, 1940
    ...... . Action. by the Delta & Pine Land Company against the Hartford. Accident & Indemnity Company, to ...v. Hill, 281 U.S. 680, 74 L.Ed. 1113;. Messina v. I. C. R. Co. (Miss.), 67 So. 963, 240. U.S. 395, 60 ... the United States has decided Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188, whereunder that. ... See Remington v. Central Pacific Railroad Company, . 198 U.S. 95, 25 S.Ct. 577, 49 ......
  • Meloon v. Davis, 1558.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • February 13, 1923
    ...... state of Maine, along a road over which the street railroad,. of which the defendant was receiver, was being operated. ... there was no sidewalk upon it, the plaintiff, in company with. his school-teacher, a young lady, and two young ...293, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.). 1213; Russell v. Maine Central R.R. Co., 100 Me. 406, 61 A. 899. In the last case the ...458, 469, 470; Id., 37 Utah 612, 109 P. 1025; Illinois Central R.R. v. Messina, 240 U.S. 395, 36 Sup.Ct. 368, 60 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT