Chicago Ry Co v. Maucher

Decision Date07 January 1919
Docket NumberNo. 85,85
Citation39 S.Ct. 108,248 U.S. 359,63 L.Ed. 294
PartiesCHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. v. MAUCHER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. William D. McHugh, of Omaha, Neb., for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 360 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Philip E. Horan, T. J. Mahoney, and J. A. C. Kennedy, all of Ohaha, Neb., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Barnum & Bailey, who owned rolling stock adapted to carrying their circus equipment and personnel, made, in 1913, a special contract with the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company concerning transportation on its lines. The railway agreed, for a sum fixed, to give the right to use its tracks and locomotives, fully manned and supplied, to haul the circus trains. Barnum & Bailey agreed, among other things, that the railway was not acting therein as a common carrier; that it should not be liable for any injury, though arising from negligence, either to their own person or property, or to that of any other of their employes; and that they would indemnify the railway against any such injury.

While the circus train was being moved in Nebraska, from Lincoln, to Atlantic, Iowa, it was crashed into by one of the railway's regular passenger trains, and Maucher, an employe of the circus, was injured. He had, by his contract of employment, agreed to release all railroad companies from any claim for injuries suffered while traveling with the circus on their lines; but he brought, in a state court of Nebraska, an action against the railway for damages, alleging that he had been injured by its negligence. The railway defended on the ground that its contract with Barnum & Bailey, and thus with the plaintiff, operated to release it from all liability; that, since the contract related to a movement in interestate commerce, its validity was to be determined by the federal law; and that by the federal law the contracts were valid, although undertaking to release the railway from liability, since it was not acting as common carrier. Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Railway Co. v. Grant Bros. Construction Co., 228 U. S. 177, 33 Sup. Ct. 474, 57 L. Ed. 787. The trial court held that the liability was to be determined by the law of Nebraska, and entered judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state. Maucher v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 100 Neb. 237, 159 N. W. 422. The case came here on writ of error under section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156 [Comp. St. § 1214]).

The railway admits that prior to the enactment of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Francis v. Southern Pac Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 15 Marzo 1948
    ... ... See, e.g., Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Maucher, 248 U.S. 359, 363, 39 S.Ct. 108, 63 L.Ed. 294. See also cases collected in 76 A.L.R. 428—435 ... ...
  • Williams v. Keyes
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1938
    ... ... Adams v. Russell, 229 U.S. 353, 33 ... S.Ct. 846, 57 L.Ed. 1224; Palmer v. State of Ohio, ... 248 U.S. 32, 39 S.Ct. 16, 63 L.Ed. 108; Chicago, R.I. & ... P. R. Co. v. Maucher, 248 U.S. 359, 39 S.Ct. 108, 63 ... L.Ed. 294 ... [186 So. 268] ... We have ... examined the ... ...
  • Phillips v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 1931
    ... ... effect upon interstate traffic." ...          And, ... commenting on a quotation from an earlier case ( Chicago, ... M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133, 18 S.Ct. 289, ... 42 L.Ed. 688): ...          " [160 ... S.C. 328] It is true that this ... protection of the law of the state in this regard." ...          In the ... case of C., R.I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Maucher, 248 U.S ... 359, 39 S.Ct. 108, 63 L.Ed. 294, a review of a judgment of ... the Supreme Court of the state of Nebraska (100 Neb. 237, 159 ... ...
  • Dierickx v. Davis, 11312.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1922
    ...W. 173, L. R. A. 1915E, 1170;Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wallace, 66 Fed. 506, 14 C. C. A. 257, 30 L. R. A. 161; Railroad Co. v. Maucher, 248 U. S. 359, 39 Sup. Ct. 108, 63 L. Ed. 294;Clough v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 155 Fed. 81, 85 C. C. A. 1, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 446;Wilson v. Railroad Co. (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