Dickinson v. Stiles
| Decision Date | 29 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 735,735 |
| Citation | 38 S.Ct. 415,62 L.Ed. 908,246 U.S. 631 |
| Parties | DICKINSON v. STILES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Edward S. Stringer, of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. George H. Lamar, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to correct a judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota which sustained the validity of a statute of the State held applicable to this case and alleged by the plaintiff in error to be repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States when so applied. The facts that raise the question are simple. One Holloway sued the plaintiff in error under the Employers' Liability Act for personal injuries and engaged the de- fendant in error, Stiles, as his attorney, agreeing to pay him one-third of the amount recovered by suit or settlement. The statutes of Minnesota give the attorney a lien upon the cause of action. Gen. Stats. of 1913, § 4955. Before trial the plaintiff in error settled by paying $6,500. Stiles intervened in the cause and claimed his fee pursuant to his contract. There was a trial which ended in a judgment for Stiles—the trial court ruling that the Minnesota statute was effective to impose a lien upon a cause of action arising under the Act of Congress relating to the liability of carriers by railroad to their employes. April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65. April 5, 1910, c. 143, 36 Stat. 291. The Supreme Court of the State sustained this ruling, 137 Minn. 410, 163 N. W. 791, and subsequently, without further discussion, affirmed the judgment for Stiles.
It is argued for the defendant in error that it does not appear sufficiently in the record that the case turned upon the ruling supposed. But the original declaration was for an injury alleged to have been received in interstate commerce and, whatever the answer denied, that was the claim that was settled. The question was called to the attention of the trial court and was discussed at length by the Supreme Court. We perceive no ground for the motion to dismiss.
Coming to the merits, cases that declare that the acts of Congress supersede all state legislation on the subject of the liability of railroad companies to their employes have nothing to do with the matter. The Minnesota statute does not meddle with that. It affects neither the amount recovered nor the persons by whom it is recovered, nor again the principles of distribution. It deals only with a necessary expense of recovery. Congress cannot have contemplated that the claims to which its action gave rise or power would be paid in all cases without litigation, or that suits would be tried by lawyers for nothing, yet it did not regulate attorney's fees. It contemplated suits in state courts and accepted state procedure in advance. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211, 36 Sup. Ct. 595, 60 L. Ed. 961, L. R. A. 1917A, 86, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 505; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Stewart, 241 U. S. 261, 36 Sup. Ct. 586, 60 L. Ed. 989. We see no reason why it should be supposed to have excluded ordinary incidents of state procedure....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ups Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Megatrux Transp., Inc.
...affecting liability for losses as opposed to the expense of recovery was again the focus of Justice Holmes in Dickinson v. Stiles, 246 U.S. 631, 38 S.Ct. 415, 62 L.Ed. 908 (1918). That case involved a claim that a lien authored by a Minnesota statute for attorney's fees was invalid because ......
-
Humphries v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R. Co.
...& Nashville Railroad Co. v. Stewart, supra; Massachusetts Benefit Association v. Miles, supra; see generally Dickinson v. Stiles, 246 U.S. 631, 38 S.Ct. 415, 62 L.Ed. 908 (1918); Note, Prejudgment Interest: An Element of Damages Not to be Overlooked, 8 Cumberland L.Rev. 521 Therefore, we do......
- Sylgab Steel & Wire Corp. v. Strickland Transportation Co.
-
Croce v. Bromley Corp.
...interest. This issue truly can be characterized as one of the "ordinary incidents of state procedure," Dickinson v. Stiles, 246 U.S. 631, 633, 38 S.Ct. 415, 416, 62 L.Ed. 908 (1918), which should be governed by state 100 S.Ct. at 762-63 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). 40 Whether giving the inst......