Cincinnati, New Orleans Texas Pacific Railway Company v. George Bohon, No. 177
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Day |
| Citation | 200 U.S. 221,26 S.Ct. 166,4 Ann.Cas. 1152,50 L.Ed. 448 |
| Parties | CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS, & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. GEORGE BOHON, Administrator of Edward Cook, Deceased, and Fred Milligan |
| Docket Number | No. 177 |
| Decision Date | 02 January 1906 |
v.
GEORGE BOHON, Administrator of Edward Cook, Deceased, and Fred Milligan.
Messrs. John Galvin and Edward Colston for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John W. Yerkes and Robert Harding for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
This case was considered by this court at the same time with the Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Thompson (just decided) 200 U. S. 206, 50 L. ed. ——, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 161, and we need not repeat the discussion therein had as to the construction of the removal act of 1887 [24 Stat. at L. 552, chap. 373, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901 p. 508], under the decisions of this court. This case has an additional feature which we shall proceed to notice. The action was brought by
Page 222
the defendant in error as administrator of Edward Cook, deceased. The petition charged that the plaintiff's intestate was engaged in the yards as a brakeman and switchman and was uncoupling and giving attention to the cars of the defendant company, which cars and an engine attached thereto were in charge of the defendant Milligan, as engineer, engaged in operating, managing, and controlling the same for the defendant company, and, while plaintiff's intestate was thus engaged, the defendant company and the defendant Milligan caught and crushed said Cook's body between the cars of the train, by and through the gross negligence of Milligan and of defendant company, in the operation, management, and control of the engine and train; that the injuries to the plaintiff resulted in his death a few minutes thereafter, and when so caught and crushed said Cook was engaged in discharging his duties as brakeman to the defendant company; the death of said Cook was caused as aforesaid by the gross negligence and carelessness of defendant company and Milligan. The railroad company filed its petition in the state court for the removal of the cause to the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Kentucky, upon the ground that there was a separable controversy between the petitioner, a resident and citizen of Ohio, and the plaintiff below, who was a citizen and resident of Kentucky. The circuit court of Mercer county refused to remove the case, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff below. Upon appeal to the court of appeals of Kentucky, the judgment was reversed for errors occurring at the trial. At a second trial the verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff below, which was again reversed and remanded. On the third trial the verdict and judgment were again rendered for the plaintiff below, which judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals of Kentucky. The sole question argued here is as to the correctness of the state court in refusing to order the removal of the cause, which judgment was affirmed by the Kentucky court of appeals.
The action for death by negligence is regulated by the Kentucky
Page 223
Constitution and statutes. Section 241 of the Constitution provides:
'Whenever the death of a person shall result from an injury inflicted by negligence or wrongful act, then, in every such case, damages may be recovered for such death from the corporations and persons so causing the same.'
Section 6 of the Kentucky statutes reads as follows:
'Whenever the death of a person shall result from an injury inflicted by negligence or wrongful act, then, in every such case, damages may be recovered for such death from the person or persons, company or companies, corporation or corporations, their agents or servants, causing the same, and when the act is wilful or the negligence is gross, punitive damages may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pullman Co v. Jenkins 13 8212 14, 1938, No. 210
...see argument of counsel, page 209 (26 S.Ct. 161, 50 L.Ed. 441, 4 Ann.Cas. 1147). And in Cincinnati, N.O. & Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bohon, 200 U.S. 221, 225, Page 544 226 (26 S.Ct. 166, 167, 168, 50 L.Ed. 448, 4 Ann.Cas. 1152) (considered and decided with the Thompson Case), the Court stated: ......
-
Ivy River Land & Timber Co v. Am. Ins. Co. Of Newark, (No. 557.)
...v.. Dixon, 179 U. S. 132, 21 S. Ct. 67, 45 L Ed. 121; Sou. Ry. v. Carson, 194 U. S. 136, 24 S. Ct. 609. 48 L. Ed. 907; Railroad v. Bohon, 200 U. S. 221, 26 S. Ct. 166, 50 L. Ed. 448, 4 Ann. Cas. 1152; Railroad v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413, 31 S. Ct. 460, 55 L. Ed. 521; Railroad v. Schwyhart, 2......
-
Tolbert v. Jackson, No. 8877.
...Great Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U.S. 206, 26 S.Ct. 161, 50 L.Ed. 441, 4 Ann.Cas. 1147; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. v. Bohon, 200 U.S. 221, 26 S.Ct. 166, 50 L.Ed. 448, 4 Ann.Cas. 1152; Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank, 212 U.S. 364, 29 S.Ct. 366, 53 L.Ed. 551;4 Lathrop, Shea & Henwood Co......
-
Jenkins v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11630.)
...48 L. Ed. 907; Alabama R. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 206, 26 S. Ct. 161, 50 L. Ed. 441, 4 Ann. Cas. 1147; Cin. & T. P. R. Co. v. Bohon, 200 U. S. 221, 26 S. Ct. 166, 50 L. Ed. 448, 4 Ann. Cas. 1152. The question is, does this situation present such a case as will authorize a verdict against......
-
Pullman Co v. Jenkins 13 8212 14, 1938, 210
...see argument of counsel, page 209 (26 S.Ct. 161, 50 L.Ed. 441, 4 Ann.Cas. 1147). And in Cincinnati, N.O. & Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bohon, 200 U.S. 221, 225, Page 544 226 (26 S.Ct. 166, 167, 168, 50 L.Ed. 448, 4 Ann.Cas. 1152) (considered and decided with the Thompson Case), the Court stated: ......
-
Ivy River Land & Timber Co v. Am. Ins. Co. Of Newark, (No. 557.)
...v.. Dixon, 179 U. S. 132, 21 S. Ct. 67, 45 L Ed. 121; Sou. Ry. v. Carson, 194 U. S. 136, 24 S. Ct. 609. 48 L. Ed. 907; Railroad v. Bohon, 200 U. S. 221, 26 S. Ct. 166, 50 L. Ed. 448, 4 Ann. Cas. 1152; Railroad v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413, 31 S. Ct. 460, 55 L. Ed. 521; Railroad v. Schwyhart, 2......
-
Stotler v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
...rest by the Supreme Court of the United States. [Railroad v. Dixon, 179 U.S. 131; Railroad v. Thompson, 200 U.S. 206; Railroad v. Bohon, 200 U.S. 221.] In a very late case, Lanning v. Railroad, 196 Mo. 647, those decisions were considered In Banc, and we all then agreed that further discuss......
-
Whiteaker v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
...Dishon v. Railroad, 113 F. 471; Wecker v. Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176; Railroad v. Thompson, 200 U.S. 206; Railroad v. Bohon, 200 U.S. 221; Winston v. Railroad, 111 Ky. 954; Railroad v. Sheegog, 215 U.S. 308. (2) The court erred in refusing to sustain the demurrer to the evidence......