Michigan Cent Co v. Mix
| Decision Date | 18 February 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 118,118 |
| Citation | 278 U.S. 492,49 S.Ct. 207,73 L.Ed. 470 |
| Parties | MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. v. MIX et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles A. Houts, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.
Messrs. Arthur Staal and E. D. Andrews, both of St. Louis, Mo., for respondents.
Thomas Doyle, a switchman employed by the Michigan Central Railroad, was killed in Michigan in the performance of his duties. He was then a resident of Lansing in that state, and there his wife Augusta lived with him until his death. Shortly after, she removed to Mossouri, was appointed administratrix of his estate at St. Louis, and, as such, brought in the circuit court of that city an action for damages against the railroad under the Federal Safety Appliance Act (45 USCA §§ 1-46) and the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59). The railroad is a Michigan corporation. No part of its line runs into Missouri. It has not consented to be sued there, has never been admitted to do business there, and has never done any business there, except soliciting freight for transportation in interstate commerce over its lines in other states. For this limited purpose it maintains an office at St. Louis. Upon its agent in charge of that office the sheriff made service of the summons.
The railroad, appearing specially, filed a petition for removal of the cause to the federal court. This the state court denied. Thereupon the railroad filed a transcript of the record in the federal court and moved there to quash the summons. Upon objection of the administrix, that court declined to pass on the motion and remanded the case to the state court. The did so apparently on the ground that the suit was one under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The railroad, again appearing specially, pressed in the state court the motion to quash. It was denied on the authority of State ex rel. Texas Portland Cement Co. v. Sale, 232 Mo. 166, 132 S. W. 1119, and Davis v. Jacksonville Southeastern Line, 126 Mo. 69, 28 S. W. 965, which hold that service upon a soliciting freight agent confers jurisdiction and that a petition to remove to the federal court is equivalent to a general appearance. After denial of the motion to quash the summons this application for a writ of prohibition was filed by the railroad, in the highest court of the state, in accordance with what appears to be the appropriate local practice. It prays that the judges of the circuit court be enjoined from acting in the suit commenced by Mrs. Doyle. The application for the writ of prohibition was denied without an opinion. That judgment is final within the meaning of section 237(a) of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 344(a). State of Mossouri ex rel. St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 266 U. S. 200, 45 S. Ct. 47, 69 L. Ed. 247, 42 A. L. R. 1232. This court granted a writ of certiorari. 277 U. S. 581, 48 S. Ct. 562, 72 L. Ed. 998.
The railroad claims that it was not subject to suit in Missouri, among other reasons, because to maintain it would violate the commerce clause. In order to show that trial of the action for damages in Missouri would entail a heavy burden upon, and unreasonably obstruct, interstate commerce, it set forth facts substantially identical with those held sufficient for that purpose in Davis v. Farmers' Co-operative Co., 262 U. S. 312, 43 S. Ct. 556, 67 L. Ed. 996, and Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Wells, 265 U. S. 101, 44 S. Ct. 469, 68 L. Ed. 928. From those cases that here involved differs only in this: There, the plaintiff was a nonresident. Here the plaintiff had become a resident in Missouri after the injury complained of, but before instituting the action. For aught that appears, her removal to St. Louis shortly after the accident was solely for the purpose of bringing the suit, and because she was advised that her chances of recovery would be better there than they would be in Michigan. The mere fact that she had acquired a residence within Missouri before commencing the action does not make reasonable the imposition upon interstate commerce of the heavy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miles v. Illinois Cent Co
...In these cases, notably Denver & R.G.W.R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295, and Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470, suits against a carrier in a state where it did business were nevertheless found to constitute an unjustifiable bur......
-
Southern Pac Co v. State of Arizona Sullivan
...and activities of the parties, Davis v. Farmers' Coop. Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 556, 67 L.Ed. 996; Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470; cf. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295, see also Buck v. Kuykendall, s......
-
Mooney v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co.
...76 L.Ed. 295; Douglas v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 279 U.S. 377, 49 S.Ct. 355, 73 L.Ed. 747; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470; Hoffman v. Missouri ex rel. Foraker, 274 U.S. 21, 47 S.Ct. 485, 71 L.Ed. 905; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. ......
-
State ex rel. Natl. Rys. of Mexico v. Rutledge
...and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." (2) We submit the following cases in support of our position: Mich. Cent. Railroad Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492. In the above case it was held that the courts of Missouri had no jurisdiction over petitioner, it never having been admitte......
-
How to review state court determinations of state law antecedent to federal rights.
...South Bend, 207 U.S. 359, 367 (1907); Wabash R.R. v. Pearce, 192 U.S. 179, 185-86 (1904). (83.) 263 U.S. 22 (1923). (84.) Id. at 24. (85.) 278 U.S. 492 (86.) Id. at 496. (87.) Cf. Brown v. W. Ry., 338 U.S. 294 (1949). Brown concerned a negligence suit brought by a plaintiff against his empl......