Corbett v. Boston & M.R.R.

• Citation: 219 Mass. 351,107 N.E. 60
• Parties: CORBETT v. BOSTON & M. R. R. (two cases).
• Decision Date: 24 November 1914
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

219 Mass. 351
107 N.E. 60

CORBETT
v.
BOSTON & M. R. R. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Nov. 24, 1914.

Report from Superior Court, Essex County; W. P. Hall, Judge.

Action by Mary E. Corbett against the Boston & Maine Railroad, and action by Mary E. Corbett, administratrix of Michael J. Corbett, deceased, against the same defendant. Judgment ordered for the defendant in the plaintiff's individual action, and rulings reported. Judgment set aside, and both actions remanded for further proceedings, in accordance with the terms of the report.

Fred H. Eaton and Frederic [219 Mass. 355]N. Chandler, both of Lawrence, for plaintiff.

Henry F. Hurlburt and Philip N. Jones, both of Boston, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

[1] The husband of the plaintiff met his death on July 8, 1912, from injuries received while working for the defendant. The plaintiff brought the first action in her own name and right to recover damages for his death under the Massachusetts Employers' Liability Act, which in such cases gives a right of action to the widow of the employé. Subsequently, having been appointed administratrix of the estate of her husband, she brought an action as such administratrix under the Employers' Liability Act of the United States, alleging that the deceased was engaged at the time of his death in service upon a train in interstate commerce. Each of these actions was against [219 Mass. 356]the defendant to recover damages for the death of the same person. They came on for trial together in the Superior Court. The judge ruled that the bringing of the action under the federal Employers' Liability Act had the effect of superseding the action under the state Employers' Liability Act and of depriving the court of jurisdiction

[107 N.E. 62]

to hear that action during the pendency of the other action. In the action under the state statute he ordered judgment for the defendant and reported the correctness of his rulings to this court.

Even if the presiding judge was right in his ruling, judgment ought not to have been rendered in favor of the defendant in the action under the state statute. A court without jurisdiction over a cause cannot enter judgment in favor of either party. It can only order that the cause be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

[2] But we are of opinion that the ruling was wrong. The federal act in the field covered by it supersedes all state statutes. As to matters within the scope of the federal power, legislation by Congress is supreme. So long as Congress had not acted as to liability for injuries received by employés of railroads while engaged in interstate commerce, legislation by the states touching that subject, being within the police power, was valid. But when Congress exerted its jurisdiction to regulate in this respect commerce between the states, state statutes previously operative in that sphere yielded to its paramount and exclusive power. Michigan Central R. R. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 66, 33 Sup. Ct. 192, 57 L. Ed. 417, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176;St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 33 Sup. Ct. 651, 57 L. Ed. 1129, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 156;Taylor v. Taylor, 232 U. S. 363, 34 Sup. Ct. 350, 58 L. Ed. 638;Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492, 501, 34 Sup. Ct. 635, 58 L. Ed. 1062. The federal act has no greater extent. It does not undertake to affect the force of the state statute in its appropriate sphere. The state law is as supreme and exclusive in its application to intrastate commerce as is the federal law to interstate commerce. If the employé of a railroad engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce is injured or killed while in the former service, the carrier's liability is controlled and must be determined solely by the federal law; if in the latter service, such liability rests wholly upon the state law. Wabash R. R. v. Hayes, 234 U....