Chicago Junction Railway Company v. William King, No. 34

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWhite
Citation56 L.Ed. 173,222 U.S. 222,32 S.Ct. 79
Decision Date11 December 1911
Docket NumberNo. 34
PartiesCHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM R. KING

222 U.S. 222
32 S.Ct. 79
56 L.Ed. 173
CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

WILLIAM R. KING.

No. 34.

Argued and submitted November 2 and 3, 1911.

Decided December 11, 1911.

Messrs.John D. Black and John Barton Payne for plaintiff in error.

Mr. James C. McShane for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

This action to recover for personal injuries, begun in a

Page 223

state court, was removed to a circuit court and there decided for the plaintiff. To obtain a reversal of a judgment affirming, the case is here upon an assumption that a constitutional question is involved which gives jurisdiction. It is admitted that such question, that is, the repugnancy of the safety appliance law to the Constitution, is now not open to controversy because of a recent decision. Southern R. Co. v. United States, not yet reported. 222 U. S. 20, 56 L. ed. 72, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2. Yet, as the case is here, other errors relied upon, it is urged, must be decided. But even conceding that the constitutional question was not wholly frivolous when first advanced, as it arose only at the trial, it does not give jurisdiction. Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, 53 L. ed. 801, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490. But this is negligible, since, by the pleadings, the cause of action was based on a statute of the United States—the safety appliance law—which gives jurisdiction. Macfadden v. United States, supra. The damage thus arose: After cutting out some cars from an interstate freight train at the Union Stock Yards in Chicago, the train could not be re-coupled because of a broken knuckle on the coupler of one of the cars. The plaintiff, a switchman, secured a new knuckle, and going between the cars to put it in place of the broken one, was crushed by a backward movement of the train, which brought the uncoupled cars together. The movement was ordered by the train conductor with the purpose of shoving the train back several city blocks to where it was proposed to repair the coupler.

Coming to consider the contentions, although they seemingly involve many propositions, they all are reducible to the assertion that the plaintiff was so clearly guilty of contributory negligence, in one aspect or the other, that it was the duty of the court to instruct a verdict for the defendant. Indeed, this is expressly stated in the argument to be the result of all the propositions except two, relating to an instruction given and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Leslie, 244
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 6 avril 1914
    ...to the evidence of witnesses and to the shifting verdicts of juries. Such is not the intention of the act of Congress. 33 S. C. Rep. 858; 222 U.S. 222. 8. It was error to exclude testimony tending to show that under the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission appellant could not refuse ......
  • Radio Corporation v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, No. 5580.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 29 août 1932
    ...Company v. Louisiana Railroad Commission, 232 U. S. 338, 339, 34 S. Ct. 438, 58 L. Ed. 631; Chicago Junction Railway Company v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 1 F. Supp. 70 224, 32 S. Ct. 79, 56 L. Ed. 173; Page v. Rogers, 211 U. S. 575, 577, 29 S. Ct. 159, 53 L. Ed. 332; Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit As......
  • Atlantic Transport Company of West Virginia v. Frank Imbrovek, No. 215
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 25 mai 1914
    ...of appeals in last resort, we shall not undertake to discuss it at length or to restate the evidence. Chicago Junction R. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 224, 56 L. ed. 173, 174, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 79; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 320, 57 L. ed. 1204, 1205, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep.......
  • Holden v. Circleville Light & Power Co., 2449.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 8 juin 1914
    ...rule that we should not reverse a judgment unless the record gives rise to a clear conviction of error (Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U.S. 222, 32 Sup.Ct. 79, 56 L.Ed. 173; Seaboard Air Line v. Moore, 228 U.S. 433, 435, 33 Sup.Ct. 580, 57 L.Ed. 907; L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Lankford (C.C.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Leslie, 244
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 6 avril 1914
    ...to the evidence of witnesses and to the shifting verdicts of juries. Such is not the intention of the act of Congress. 33 S. C. Rep. 858; 222 U.S. 222. 8. It was error to exclude testimony tending to show that under the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission appellant could not refuse ......
  • Radio Corporation v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, No. 5580.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 29 août 1932
    ...Company v. Louisiana Railroad Commission, 232 U. S. 338, 339, 34 S. Ct. 438, 58 L. Ed. 631; Chicago Junction Railway Company v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 1 F. Supp. 70 224, 32 S. Ct. 79, 56 L. Ed. 173; Page v. Rogers, 211 U. S. 575, 577, 29 S. Ct. 159, 53 L. Ed. 332; Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit As......
  • Atlantic Transport Company of West Virginia v. Frank Imbrovek, No. 215
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 25 mai 1914
    ...of appeals in last resort, we shall not undertake to discuss it at length or to restate the evidence. Chicago Junction R. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 224, 56 L. ed. 173, 174, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 79; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 320, 57 L. ed. 1204, 1205, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep.......
  • Holden v. Circleville Light & Power Co., 2449.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 8 juin 1914
    ...rule that we should not reverse a judgment unless the record gives rise to a clear conviction of error (Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U.S. 222, 32 Sup.Ct. 79, 56 L.Ed. 173; Seaboard Air Line v. Moore, 228 U.S. 433, 435, 33 Sup.Ct. 580, 57 L.Ed. 907; L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Lankford (C.C.......
  • 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