Aluminum Company of America v. George Ramsey

• Decision Date: 11 December 1911
• Docket Number: No. 56,56
• Citation: 32 S.Ct. 76,222 U.S. 251,56 L.Ed. 185
• Parties: ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plff. in Err., v. GEORGE H. RAMSEY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

222 U.S. 251

32 S.Ct. 76

56 L.Ed. 185

ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plff. in Err.,

v GEORGE H. RAMSEY.

No. 56.

Submitted November 8, 1911.

Decided December 11, 1911.

Messrs. Uriah M. Rose, George B. Rose, wilson E. Hemingway, and J. F. Loughborough for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 252 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Henry M. Armistead, T. M. Mehaffy, and J. Ed. Williams for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 253 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant in error brought this action against the plaintiff in error in the Saline circuit court of the state of Arkansas to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received by him while in the employment of the company, which maintained a railroad to its mines, on account of the negligence of a fellow servant.

The action was based upon a statute of the state called by the parties 'the fellow servant law.' The statute makes railroad corporations operating within the state, and every company, whether incorporated or not, engaged in the mining of coal, 'liable to respond in damages for injuries or death sustained' by agents, employees, or servants, 'resulting from a careless omission of duty or negligence of such employer,' or 'any authorized agent, servant, or employee of the said employer,' in the same manner as though the carelessness, omission of duty, or negligence was that of the employer.

The company assailed the constitutionality of the statute by the request for the following instruction, which was refused by the trial court. 'You are instructed that the act of the legislature, approved March 8th, 1907, known as 'the fellow servant law,' in providing it shall apply to all corporations, but shall not apply to individuals, persons, or partnerships, except those engaged in the operation of a railroad or coal mine, denies to this defendant the equal protection of the law, and is in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'

There was a verdict for the plaintiff, defendant in error here, upon which judgment was duly entered. It was sustained by the supreme court of Arkansas, 89 Ark. 522, 117 S. W. 568.

The supreme court sustained the action of the trial court in refusing the instruction, on the authority of Ozan Lumber Co. v. Biddle, which had been previously decided, and which is reported in 87 Ark. 587, 113 S. W. 796. This action of the court is assigned as error, and is the Federal question relied on.

A motion is made to dismiss, and, alternately, to affirm, respectively, on the ground that there is no Federal question in the state court's construction of the statute, and that if there be such a question, it is foreclosed by repeated decisions of this court. In support of the motion to dismiss, it is contended that the state court decided that the act assailed is an amendment to the charter of the corporation under the reserved right to amend, alter, or repeal the charter, and of this the corporation cannot complain, the exertion of such right being a condition of its existence.

In Ozan Lumber Co. v. Biddle, supra, the court decided that 'the fellow servant law' was an amendment to the charters of corporations, made under the right reserved in the Constitution of the state to repeal, alter, or amend such charters. The Ozan...