Denver Co v. Terte

Citation284 U.S. 284,52 S.Ct. 152,76 L.Ed. 295
Decision Date04 January 1932
Docket NumberNo. 130,130
PartiesDENVER & R. G. W. R. CO. et al. v. TERTE, Judge
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. Thomas Hackney, of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioners.

Mr. Clay C. Rogers, of Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri brings up for review a judgment which denied a petition for prohibition without an accompanying opinion.

Following the local practice, the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company (Rio Grande) and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company (Santa Fe ) presented their petition directly to the Supreme Court. After setting out the proceedings in an action against them pending in the Jackson county circuit court, it alleged that if the cause proceeded to trial an undue burden on interstate commerce would result; also the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution (art. 1, § 8, cl. 3) and the Fourteenth Amendment would be violated. It asked that the presiding judge be restrained from entertaining further jurisdiction.

On August 26, 1930, Curtis, then residing in Missouri, brought the above-mentioned action against both the Santa Fe and the Rio Grande under the Federal Em- ployers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59). He sought damages for personal injuries said to have resulted from their joint negligence on December 26, 1929, while he was employed by them at an interlocking track and signal plant near Pueblo, Colorado.

A writ of attachment against the Rio Grande was served by garnishee process upon several railroad companies said to be indebted to it. Summonses for both defendants were served upon their agents.

Defendants, appearing specially, moved to quash the attachment and summonses and presented affidavits to support their motions. The plaintiff filed counter affidavits. It appeared that properly to defend the cause would require attendance of witnesses from Colorado at large expense; also the attendance of some witnesses for the plaintiff who resided in Missouri. The trial court overruled the motions. Thereupon, the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court as above stated.

The Rio Grande, a Delaware corporation, operates lines which lie wholly within Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. It neither owns nor operates any line in Missouri; but it does own and use some property located there. It maintains one or more offices in the state and employs agents who solicit traffic. These agents engage in transactions incident to the procurement, delivery, and record of such traffic. It is not licensed to do business in Missouri.

The Santa Fe , a Kansas corporation, owns and operates railroad lines in Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and other states. It is licensed to do business in Missouri and has an office and agents in Jackson county. These agents transact the business ordinarily connected with the operation of a carrier by railroad.

After being injured at Pueblo, and before instituting his action against the railroad companies, Curtis removed to and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 cases
  • Miles v. Illinois Cent Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1942
    ...receipts in St. Louis of a million and a half the year the suit was filed. Under the rule announced in Denver & R.G.W.R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 287, 52 S.Ct. 152, 153, 76 L.Ed. 295, the Illinois Central is properly subable in Missouri. In the Kepner case, 314 U.S. 44, 51, 62 S.Ct. 6, 9......
  • Southern Pac Co v. State of Arizona Sullivan
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 18 Giugno 1945
    ...43 S.Ct. 556, 67 L.Ed. 996; Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470; cf. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295, see also Buck v. Kuykendall, supra; Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, supra; Baldwin v. Seelig, supra, 294......
  • Mooney v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 7 Agosto 1950
    ...of prior decisions. McKnett v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 292 U.S. 230, 54 S.Ct. 690, 78 L.Ed. 1227; Denver & Rio Grande W. R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295; Douglas v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 279 U.S. 377, 49 S.Ct. 355, 73 L.Ed. 747; Michigan Cent. R.......
  • State ex rel. Natl. Rys. of Mexico v. Rutledge
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Dicembre 1932
    ...Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101; Michigan Central Railroad Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492; and Denver & Rio Grand Western Railroad Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284. In the Davis case the court ruled the constitutionality of a statute of the State of Minnesota which provides that: "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • Florida Tax Review Vol. 25 No. 1, September 2021
    • 22 Settembre 2021
    ...(113.)Revenue Act of 1928 [section] 322, 45 Stat. 861 (1928); Revenue Act of 1926 [section] 284, 44 Stat. 66 (1926). (114.)Lewis, 284 U.S. at 284. (115.)Id. (116.)See, e.g., Williams-Russell & Johnson, Inc. v. United States. 371 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 2004) ("That the assessment her......

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