Eng v. Southern Pac. Co.
| Citation | 210 F. 92 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1913 |
| Docket Number | 6,220. |
| Parties | ENG v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
John F Logan and Littlefield & Smith, all of Portland, Or., for plaintiff.
Wm. D Fenton, Ralph E. Moody, and John F. Reilly, all of Portland Or., for defendant.
This action was commenced in the state court by an employe of the defendant company to recover damages for an injury alleged to have been received by him while engaged in framing up a new office in a freight shed belonging to the defendant and in sawing boards and nailing them in place on the wall. It appears from the complaint that the defendant is engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce, and that the freight shed in question was owned, controlled, and operated by it in furtherance of and in carrying on such business for both interstate and intrastate shipments of freight. The action was removed to this court on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and the plaintiff now moves to remand, for the reason that it is one arising under the federal Employers' Liability Act, and is not removable.
The federal statute (35 Stats. at Large, 65) makes every common carrier, while engaged in interstate commerce, liable in damages for the injury to or death of any person while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce, and gives courts of the United States and the state courts jurisdiction of actions arising thereunder. It is also provided that no case arising under the act, brought in a state court of competent jurisdiction, shall be removed to any court of the United States, and the uniform holding is that such an action is not removable, although it would otherwise be removable on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Burnett v.S., P. & S. Ry Co., 210 F. 94, decided by this court October 13, 1913, and Patton v. Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. (D.C.) 208 F. 29, and authorities there cited.
When a carrier is engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce, using the same instrumentalities, appliances, and employes in both classes of commerce, it is difficult to draw the line of demarcation between the two classes of employment; but the result of the decisions up to this time seems to be that, when the work in which the employe was engaged at the time of his injury is so closely connected with interstate commerce as to be a part thereof, it comes within the statute. It has been so held in the case of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crecelius of Estate of Crecelius v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Company
...1033; Horton v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 72 Wash. 503, 130 P. 897; Grow v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 44 Utah 160, 138 P. 398; Eng. v. Southern Pac. Co., 210 F. 92; San Pedro, etc. Co. v. Davide, 210 F. Norfolk & Western Ry. v. Earnest, 229 U.S. 114, 57 L.Ed. 1096, 33 S.Ct. 654; North Carolina......
-
Kepner v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
... ... 233 U.S. 473; Railroad v. Welch, 242 U.S. 303; ... Railroad v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177; Kelly v ... Railroad, 238 F. 95; Dunn v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., ... 190 S.W. 966; Lacasse v. Railroad, 65 So. 1012; ... Ill. Central v. Cousins, 242 U.S. 641; ... Castonguary v. Grand Trunk, ... 939; Newkirk v. Pryor (Mo ... App.), 183 S.W. 682; Brewer v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo ... App.), 259 S.W. 825; Eng. v. Southern Pac. Co., ... 210 F. 92; New York Central v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260; ... Michigan Central v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59; ... Southern Ry. Co. v ... ...
-
Delong v. Me. Cent. R. Co.
...L. & W. R. Co, 1913, 229 U.S. 146, 33 S.Ct. 648, 57 L.Ed. 1125, Ann.Cas.1914C, 153, carrying bolts or rivets to bridge; Eng v. Southern Pac. Co., 1913, D.C., 210 F. 92, constructing new office in freight shed; Grow v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 1914, 44 Utah 160, 138 P. 398, Ann.Cas.1915B, 4......
-
Thompson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
...251 U. S. 259, 40 S. Ct. 130, 64 L. Ed. 258, 10 A. L. R. 1181; Clemence v. Hudson & M. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 11 F. (2d) 913; Eng v. Southern Pacific R. Co. (D. C.) 210 F. 92; Freeman v. Frasher, 84 Colo. 67, 268 P. 538; Coil v. Payne, 114 Kan. 636, 220 P. I cannot agree with defendants that thi......