Hogue v. Southern Co
Decision Date | 01 April 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 889,889 |
Citation | 20 L.Ed.2d 73,88 S.Ct. 1150,390 U.S. 516 |
Parties | Henry Harold HOGUE v. SOUTHERN R. CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Samuel D. Hewlett, Jr., for petitioner.
Charles A. Horsky, for respondent.
We granted the petition for certiorari in this case over the opposition of the respondent carrier. 390 U.S. 903, 88 S.Ct. 819, 19 L.Ed.2d 869. The writ presents for review a judgment in favor of the respondent carrier entered by the Georgia Court of Appeals upon a holding that a plaintiff under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 51 seq., who attacks a previously executed release on grounds of mutual mistake of fact, must, as a condition to bringing his suit, tender back to his carrier employer the consideration he received for the release. 116 Ga.App. 194, 156 S.E.2d 412, certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Respondent carrier has now filed before argument a 'Memorandum Confessing Error' which states
Petitioner had suffered an injury to a knee while working in respondent carrier's shops. He executed a release for a consideration of $105, and did not offer to return the consideration before instituting this action. He pleaded that the release was obtained by reason of a mistake of fact of both parties as to the extent of his injuries, alleging specifically that he and the carrier had relied on the assurances of the carrier's doctor that he had only a bruised knee and was not permanently injured, whereas later it was determined that his injury was permanent and resulted in his having two operations, one of which caused him to lose a kneecap.
The question whether a tender back of the consideration was a prerequisite to the bringing of the suit is to be determined by federal rather than state law. Dice v. Akron, C. & Y.R. Co., 342 U.S. 359, 361, 72 S.Ct. 312, 314, 66 L.Ed. 398. We reject the suggestion that a tender back of the consideration is excused only where fraud enters into the execution of the release. See, e.g., Graham v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 9 Cir., 176 F.2d 819, 826. We hold that a tender back is also not requisite when it is pleaded that the carrier and the employee entered into the release from mutual mistake as to the nature and extent of the employee's injuries. We have held that an express agreement of an injured employee who obtained funds from a carrier to help defray living expenses first to return the sum paid as a prerequisite to the filing and maintenance of an action under the FELA was void under § 5 of the Act.* Duncan v Thompson, Trustee, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Airlines, Inc. v. Cardoza-Rodriguez
...OWBPA, see Long, 105 F.3d at 1537, and (2) the OWBPA displaced the common-law tender-back doctrine under Hogue v. Southern Ry. Co., 390 U.S. 516, 88 S.Ct. 1150, 20 L.Ed.2d 73 (1968). We reject the view adopted by the Fourth and Fifth Circuits and adopt the majority position. At common law, ......
-
In re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.
...Court held that the tender back doctrine was "wholly incongruous with the statute's general policy." Hogue v. Southern R. Co., 390 U.S. 516, 88 S.Ct. 1150, 20 L.Ed.2d 73 (1968)). Kishbaugh received $10,200 when he was terminated in 1992 at age 53 after having been with Leslie Fay since 1976......
-
Long v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
...under common law notions of fairness," the court nonetheless held that the Supreme Court's decision in Hogue v. Southern R. Co., 390 U.S. 516, 88 S.Ct. 1150, 20 L.Ed.2d 73 (1968), compelled a different result. Id. In Hogue, a brief per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court considered the tender......
-
Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Brent
...the exclusive remedy for a railroad employee injured as a result of his or her employer's negligence. Hogue v. Southern Ry. Co., 390 U.S. 516, 517–518, 88 S.Ct. 1150, 20 L.Ed.2d 73 (1968); Rivera v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 378 F.3d 502, 507 (5th Cir.2004). “What constitutes negligence for [......
-
Sex Discrimination Claims Under Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
...291. Alexander v. Gardner, 415 U.S. 36, 51 (1974). 292. Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 428 (1998); Hogue v. S. R. Co., 390 U.S. 516, 516 (1968). 2021] SEX DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER TITLE VII 403 V. DEFINITION OF SEX Because Title VII protects against employment discrimin......