Cincinnati, Hamilton Dayton Railroad Company v. Benjamin Thiebaud
Decision Date | 24 April 1900 |
Docket Number | Nos. 259,271,No. 259,s. 259,259 |
Parties | CINCINNATI, HAMILTON, & DAYTON RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. BENJAMIN F. THIEBAUD, Administrator of the Estate of Chris. Sweetman, Deceased |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The certificate in No. 259 reads as follows:
'This was an action brought by Benj. F. Thiebaud, a citizen of Indiana, as administrator of Chris. Sweetman, deceased, appointed by the circuit court of Fayette county, Indiana, against the C. H. & D. R. R. Co., a corporation and citizen of Ohio, to recover damages for the wrongful death of said Chris. Sweetman, who, while employed as a locomotive engineer by said company, on an engine drawing its pay car, was, without fault on his part, killed in a collision between his engine and that of a freight train. The collision was caused by the negligence of the conductor and engineer of the freight train. The court charged the jury, among other things, that inasmuch as the deceased had been killed through the negligence of fellow servants, the defendant would probably not be liable at common law, but that it was liable for the negligence charged and admitted under the act of the general assembly of Indiana, approved March 4, 1893, entitled 'An Act Regulating the Liability of Railroad and Other Corporations, except Municipal, for Personal Injuries to Persons Employed by Them,' etc. Laws of Indiana, 1893, p. 294; Ind. Rev. Stat. §§ 7083-7087. Upon which act the plaintiff relied for recovery; to which charge the defendant excepted.
'The record does not show upon what ground said exception was taken, and does not show that said exception was upon the ground that the statute contravenes the Constitution of the United States, or that the constitutionality of the statute was otherwise raised or considered or decided by the circuit court. The statute is not mentioned in any of the pleadings. The record shows other exceptions taken, duly assigned for error, which do not raise any constitutional question, and which may require the reversal of the judgment of the circuit court without reference to any constitutional question.
'The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was entered thereon.
'Thereafter the defendant brought the case, by writ of error, to this court, and assigned for error:
'1. That the court erred in charging the jury that the defendant was liable under the act of the general assembly of Indiana, approved March 4, 1893.
'2. That said act is in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
'3. That said act is in contravention of the Constitution of the state of Indiana, and especially of article 11, § 23, of article 4, §§ 19 and 23 thereof.
'4. That the court erred in overruling the defendant's motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
'5. That the court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to put the following question to the witness, Charles M. Cist: 'Where were those personal effects at the time you made your application?'
'6. That the court erred in ruling out and excluding the testimony offered by the defendant to show that plaintiff's administration was not based upon any personal estate in Fayette county, Indiana, other than the claim sued on.
'Thereupon the defendant in error moved in this court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that it is a case in which it is claimed that the statute of a state is in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, and that, therefore, under § 5 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. 517), the writ of error should be taken from the Supreme Court of the United States, and not from this court.
'The court is in doubt whether the case is within the provisions of said section of the act of Congress, and therefore, upon the foregoing statement of facts it is ordered that the following question be certified to the Supreme Court of the United States for its instructions:
'1. Has the circuit court of appeals jurisdiction of a wit of error to the circuit court in a case in which it is claimed that a law of a state is in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, where the record presents other questions not involving the Constitution of the United States?
'2. Has the circuit court of appeals jurisdiction of a writ of error to the circuit court in a case in which it is claimed that a law of a state is in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, where the record presents other questions not involving the Constitution of the United States, which might require a reversal of the judgment without reference to such constitutional question?
'3. Does a record showing an instruction by the circuit court directing a jury that the plaintiff is entitled to recover in his action under a state law, upon which the plaintiff relies for recovery, to which instruction a general exception is reserved by the defendant, disclose a case in which it is claimed that the law of a state is in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, within the meaning of § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, where the record of the circuit court does not affirmatively show that any issue as to the statute was raised by the pleadings, and where the record does not affirmatively show that said exception to said instruction was upon the ground that said statute was in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, or that the constitutionality of said statute was otherwise presented or considered or passed upon by the circuit court?
No. 271 is a writ of error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio to review the judgment referred to in the certificate. In the petition for the writ, defendant set forth that 'having duly prosecuted the writ of error heretofore allowed by the court to the United States circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit, the plaintiff in this case, being the defendant in error, filed a motion in said circuit court of appeals to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pikes Peak Power Co. v. City of Colorado Springs
... ... Power Company, a corporation, upon the merits at the final ... 713, 44 L.Ed. 861, 863; Railroad Co. v ... Thiebaud, 177 U.S. 615, 620, 20 ... Mun. Corp. § 27; City of Cincinnati v. Cameron, 33 ... Ohio St. 336, 367; Safety ... ...
-
Darnell v. Illinois Cent R. Co.
... ... J. Darnell against the Illinois Central Railroad ... Company and the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley ... 721, 43 L.Ed. 1102; and Railroad v. Thiebaud, 177 ... U.S. 615, 20 Sup.Ct. 822, 44 L.Ed. 911, ... ...
-
United States v. Adrian Larkin
...Rep. 343; Columbus Constr. Co. v. Crane Co. 174 U. S. 600, 43 L. ed. 1102, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721; Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Thiebaud, 177 U. S. 615, 44 L. ed. 911, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 822; Loeb v. Columbia Twp. 179 U. S. 472, 45 L. ed. 280, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, the ......
-
American Sugar Refining Co. v. City of New Orleans
... ... S.U.S. 713, ... 44 L.Ed. 861, and Railroad Co. v. Thiebaud, 20 ... Sup.Ct. 822, Adv. S.U.S ... Company the sum of $6,250 claimed to be due for license ... 39, 39 L.Ed. 87; New Orleans v ... Benjamin, 153 U.S. 411, 14 Sup.Ct. 905, 38 L.Ed. 764; ... ...