266 U.S. 200 (1924), 89, St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Company v. Taylor

Docket Nº:No. 89
Citation:266 U.S. 200, 45 S.Ct. 47, 69 L.Ed. 247
Party Name:St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Company v. Taylor
Case Date:November 17, 1924
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 200

266 U.S. 200 (1924)

45 S.Ct. 47, 69 L.Ed. 247

St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Company

v.

Taylor

No. 89

United States Supreme Court

Nov. 17, 1924

Argued October 17, 1924

ERROR AND CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Syllabus

1. A judgment of a state supreme court denying an application for a writ of prohibition to prevent a lower court from entertaining jurisdiction by garnishment over an action against a foreign railroad corporation for damage to an interstate shipment held a final judgment, and reviewable in this Court by certiorari, but not by writ of error. P. 200.

2. A Delaware corporation, having a usual place of business in Missouri, brought an action in a Missouri court against a Texas corporation which operated a railroad in Texas only, and had no place of business, nor had consented to be sued, in Missouri, the cause of action being damage, done possibly in Missouri, to freight shipped to tat state from Texas over defendant's line on a through bill of lading, and the basis of jurisdiction in Missouri

Page 201

being the garnishment of traffic balance due the defendant from a connecting interstate carrier having a place of business there.

Held:

(a) That the Missouri attachment law, by requiring interstate carriers to submit to garnishment in such circumstances, did not unreasonably burden interstate commerce. P. 207.

(b) The fact that the cause of action arose under an act of Congress (the Carmack Amendment), and could not be entertained originally by a federal court in Missouri without personal service on the defendant, was not an obstacle to its enforcement in the state court by garnishment. P. 207.

3. When Congress creates a right of action and makes no provision concerning the remedy, the federal and state court have concurrent Jurisdiction, and the plaintiff choosing a state court is entitled to whatever remedial advantage inheres in the forum. P. 208.

4. No peculiarity of state procedure can enlarge or abridge a substantive federal right, but to enforce a federal claim by subjecting property within the state to its satisfaction through attachment does not enlarge the substantive right. P. 209.

298 Mo. 474 affirmed.

Error and certiorari to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri denying an application for a writ of prohibition to stop proceedings in a lower...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP