Alexander Chiles v. Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company
Decision Date | 31 May 1910 |
Docket Number | No. 158,158 |
Parties | J. ALEXANDER CHILES, Plff. in Err., v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. J. Alexander Chiles, in propria persona, Albert S. White, W. L. Ricks, and B. E. Smith for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John T. Shelby, Henry T. Wickham, and Henry Taylor, Jr., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error is a colored man. He bought a first-class ticket from defendant in error, a corporation engaged in operating a line of railroad from the city of Louisville, state of Kentucky, and the city of Cincinnati, state of Ohio, to the city of Washington, District of Columbia. The ticket entitled him to ride from Washington to Lexington, Kentucky.
The train which he took at Washington did not run through to Lexington, and he changed to another train at Ashland, Kentucky, going into a car which, it is alleged, under the rules and regulations of defendant in error, was set apart exclusively for white persons. From this car he was required to remove to a car set apart exclusively for the transportation of colored persons.
He removed under protest, and only after a police officer had been summoned by defendant in error. Subsequently he brought this action in the circuit court of Fayette county, Kentucky. The case was tried to a jury, which rendered a verdict against him. A motion for a new trial was overruled. He appealed to the court of appeals of the state, and the action and judgment of the trial court were affirmed.
The assignments of error in this court depend upon the contention that plaintiff in error was an interstate passenger, and was entitled to a first-class passage from Washington to Lexington, and that therefore the act of defendant in error, in causing him to be removed from the car at Ashland, was a violation of his rights, and subjected the railroad company to damages.
The court of appeals of the state made the case turn on a narrow ground; to wit, the right which, it was decided, a railroad company had 'to establish such rules and regulations as will require white and colored passengers although they may be interstate, to occupy separate compartments upon the train.' The court, however, said that there could be no discrimination in the accommodations.
The court found the facts of the removal of plaintiff, and the character of the car to which he was required to remove, as follows:
The court further said:
In this the court came to the same conclusion as the jury. Plaintiff in error insists that this conclusion put out of view his rights as an interstate commerce passenger. Both courts ignored such rights, he contends, the trial court, in refusing instructions that were requested and in its ruling on the trial, and the court of appeals, in affirming the judgment which was based upon the verdict.
We need not set out the instructions nor the rulings. The complaint of the action of the court rests upon the contention that, as against an interstate passenger, the regulation of the company in providing different cars for the white and colored races is void. There is a statute of Kentucky which requires railroad companies to furnish separate coaches for white and colored passengers, but the court of appeals of the state put the statute out of consideration, declaring that it had no application to interstate trains, and defendant in error does not rest its defense upon that statute, but upon its rules and regulations. Plaintiff in error makes some effort to keep the statute in the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
... ... 434 et seq.), requiring every railroad company doing business ... in that state as a common ... this suit against the defendants, several railway companies ... doing business throughout Oklahoma ... 348, 33 L.Ed. 784, and Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v ... Kentucky, 179 U.S. 388, ... more recent case of Chiles v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry ... Co., 218 U.S. 71, ... ...
-
Hopkins v. City Of Richmond
...the terms of the ordinances: McQuillin, Mun. Ordinances, §§ 186, 432; McQuillin, Mun. Corp. § 732; Childs v. C. & O. R. Co., 218 U. S. 71, 77, 30 Sup. Ct. 667, 54 L. Ed. 936, 20 Ann. Cas. 980; Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578, 33 Sup. Ct. 182, 57 L. Ed. 364, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 284; Adams......
-
U.S. v. Engler
... ... that Kirkland believed the fur trapping company for which Engler had worked had been engaged in ... ...
-
Browder v. Gayle
...in later cases. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kentucky, 1900, 179 U.S. 388, 21 S.Ct. 101, 45 L.Ed. 244; Chiles v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 1910, 218 U.S. 71, 30 S.Ct. 667, 54 L.Ed. 936; McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 1914, 235 U.S. 151, 35 S.Ct. 69, 59 L.Ed. In Morgan v. Virginia,......
-
The United States Supreme Court and the Segregation Issue
...189 U. S. 475 (1903);Giles v. Teasley, 193 U. S. 146 (1904).9 Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45(1908).10 Chiles v. C. & O. Ry Co., 218 U. S. 71(1910).11 The classic case is Strauder v. West Vir-ginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880) ; see also Virginiav. Rives, 100 U. S. 313 (1880).12 Ex parte V......
-
Soldiers and Buses
...exonerated in death of Negro in finding by coroner. (1946, February 10). BirminghamNews,p.1.Chiles v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, 218 U.S. 71. (1910).Clark, T. (1943, September 18). [Letter to Walter White re Pleasant]. DOJ RG 60 144-2-5(Reuben Pleasant).Correspondence re Thomas Wesley Samue......