Denver Co v. Terte, No. 130

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

284 U.S. 284
52 S.Ct. 152
76 L.Ed. 295
DENVER & R. G. W. R. CO. et al.

v.

TERTE, Judge.

No. 130.
Argued Nov. 24, 1931.
Decided Jan. 4, 1932.

Page 285

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-

Page 286

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Southern Ry. Co. v. Mayfield, No. 41461.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 10, 1949
    ...S. Ct. 690, 78 L. Ed. 1227; Hoffman v. State ex rel. Foraker, 274 U.S. 21, 47 S. Ct. 485, 71 L. Ed. 905; Denver v. R.G.W.R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S. Ct. 152, 76 L. Ed. 515; Wells v. Davis, 303 Mo. 388, 261 S.W. 58; State ex rel. Foraker v. Hoffman, 309 Mo. 625, 274 S.W. 362; Shaw v......
  • State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte, No. 40241.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1947
    ...a permanent writ of prohibition should issue herein. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8; Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S. Ct. 152, 76 L. Ed. 295; Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S. Ct. 207, 73 L. Ed. 470; Davis, Director General of Railr......
  • Southern Pac Co v. State of Arizona Sullivan, No. 56
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 18, 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......
  • Baltimore Co v. Kepner, No. 20
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1941
    ...the writ. In petitioner's brief on the merits, it is pointed out that this Court held in Denver & Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295, that the disadvantages of litigation far from the scene of the accident are not substantial enough to justify a sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
68 cases
  • State ex rel. Southern Ry. Co. v. Mayfield, No. 41461.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 10, 1949
    ...S. Ct. 690, 78 L. Ed. 1227; Hoffman v. State ex rel. Foraker, 274 U.S. 21, 47 S. Ct. 485, 71 L. Ed. 905; Denver v. R.G.W.R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S. Ct. 152, 76 L. Ed. 515; Wells v. Davis, 303 Mo. 388, 261 S.W. 58; State ex rel. Foraker v. Hoffman, 309 Mo. 625, 274 S.W. 362; Shaw v......
  • State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte, No. 40241.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1947
    ...a permanent writ of prohibition should issue herein. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8; Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S. Ct. 152, 76 L. Ed. 295; Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S. Ct. 207, 73 L. Ed. 470; Davis, Director General of Railr......
  • Southern Pac Co v. State of Arizona Sullivan, No. 56
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 18, 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......
  • Baltimore Co v. Kepner, No. 20
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1941
    ...the writ. In petitioner's brief on the merits, it is pointed out that this Court held in Denver & Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295, that the disadvantages of litigation far from the scene of the accident are not substantial enough to justify a sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE ROLE OF OFFSET IN THE COLLECTION OF FEDERAL TAXES.
    • United States
    • Florida Tax Review Vol. 25 Nbr. 1, September 2021
    • September 22, 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