Chicago Ry Co v. Maucher
Decision Date | 07 January 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 85,85 |
Citation | 39 S.Ct. 108,248 U.S. 359,63 L.Ed. 294 |
Parties | CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. v. MAUCHER |
Court | U.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.
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]).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Francis v. Southern Pac Co
... ... 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
... ... 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.
... ... 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.
...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......