Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company v. Albert Schwyhart

Decision Date03 February 1913
Docket NumberNo. 132,132
Citation227 U.S. 184,33 S.Ct. 250,57 L.Ed. 473
PartiesCHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY and Martin A. Barrett, Plffs. in Err., v. ALBERT H. SCHWYHART, Harry L. Reed, and Frank Novak
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Paul E. Walker and F. C. Dillard for plaintiffs in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 185-189 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Kendall B. Randolph, Boyd Dudley, and J. A. Selby for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 189-192 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action for personal injuries, brought by Schwyhart against the railway company and those of its servants to whose immediate negligence the injuries were alleged to have been due. There was a verdict and judgment against the company and the defendant Barrett, but at the proper time a petition had been filed by the railway company for the removal of the action to the circuit court of the United States, and it now contends that all subsequent proceedings in the state courts were void. 145 Mo. App. 332, 130 S. W. 388.

The declaration alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the company as hostler under Barrett as foreman; that it was his duty under Barrett's direction to uncouple the air brake and signal hose from between the ends of the cars on a specified train; that Barrett ordered him to do so, and that while he was between the cars, owing to their proceeding in an unusual manner that is stated, he was crushed; and further, that Barrett negligently ordered him into the dangerous situation without giving him warning of the danger, and by his order and presence assured plaintiff that the work could be proceeded with safely when, by the exercise of ordinary care on Barrett's part, the injury could have been avoided. After the petition for removal had been overruled the declaration was amended by inserting as to Barrett, 'although he well knew of plaintiff's danger and the unusual way by which the said Pullman car was to be switched.'

The defendants other than the railway were residents of Missouri, and the petition for removal charged that they were joined for the sole and fraudulent purpose of preventing a removal. The grounds stated for the charge of fraudulent joinder were that the declaration disclosed no cause of action against those defendants, that the company and they were not jointly liable, and that they were persons of little or no property, while the company was fully able to pay. It will be sufficient to consider these grounds with reference to Barrett...

To continue reading

Request your trial
145 cases
  • Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 28 d5 Maio d5 1954
    ...McAllister v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 1917, 243 U.S. 302, 310-311, 37 S.Ct. 274, 61 L.Ed. 735; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Schwyhart, 1913, 227 U.S. 184, 194, 33 S.Ct. 250, 57 L.Ed. 473; Smith v. Southern Pac. Co., 9 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 397, 400-402; (9) that in cases "arising under the......
  • Pullman Co v. Jenkins 13 8212 14, 1938, 210
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 16 d1 Janeiro d1 1939
    ...3, Sec. 71, 28 U.S.C., 28 U.S.C.A. § 71. 2 c. 2, Sec. 51, § 56, 45 U.S.C., 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51, 56. 3 Chicago, I.R. & Pac. Ry. v. Schwyhart, 227 U.S. 184, 194, 33 S.Ct. 250, 251, 7 L.Ed. 473. 4 Nichols v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 6 Cir., decided 1912, 195 F. 913; Stewart v. Nebraska Tire & ......
  • Miller v. Collins
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 3 d5 Julho d5 1931
    ...Clay Products Co., 282 S.W. 141; Winkler v. Railroad Co., 10 S.W. (2d) 649; Schwyhart v. Ry. Co., 130 S.W. 388; C.R.I. & P. Ry. Co. and Barrett v. Schwyhart, 227 U.S. 184. (6) The verdict was not excessive. Zumwalt v. Railroad Co., 266 S.W. 717; Skinner v. Davis, 280 S.W. 37; Breen v. Unite......
  • Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Foreman
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 27 d1 Junho d1 1938
    ...Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dowell, 229 U.S. 102, 33 S.Ct. 684, 57 L.Ed. 1090; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Schwyhart, 227 U.S. 184, 33 S.Ct. 250, 57 L.Ed. 473; Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413, 31 S.Ct. 460, 55 L.Ed. 521; Illinois Central R. Co. ......
  • 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