Hosea Tullis v. Lake Erie Western Railroad Company
Decision Date | 11 December 1899 |
Docket Number | No. 71,71 |
Citation | 44 L.Ed. 192,175 U.S. 348,20 S.Ct. 136 |
Parties | HOSEA B. TULLIS, Plff. in Err. , v. LAKE ERIE & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case comes to this court on the following certificate of the United States circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit:
'In this case, duly argued and submitted to this court, there arises a question of law concerning which this court desires the instruction of the Supreme Court of the United States. The action was brought by the plaintiff in error to recover damages for an injury suffered while in the employment of the defendant in error, caused by a negligent act of a fellow servant, for which the defendant in error is alleged to be responsible by force of an act of the legislature of Indiana approved by the governor of the state March 4, 1893. The first section of the act reads as follows:
'For the entire act reference is made to Session Laws of 1893, page 294, Burns's Annotated Indiana Statutes, Revision of 1894, paragraphs 7083 to 7087, inclusive.
Mr. Addison C. Harris submitted the case for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. W. H. H. Miller, John B. Cockrum, and John B. Elam for defendant in error.
The contention is that the act referred to is in conflict with the 14th Amendment because it denies the equal protection of the laws to the corporations to which it is applicable.
In Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 152 Ind. 1, 49 N. E. 582, the statute in question was held valid as to railroad companies, and it was also held that objection to its validity could not be made by such companies, on the ground that it embraced all corporations except municipal, and that there were some corporations whose business would not bring them within the reason of the classification. In announcing the latter conclusion the court ruled in effect that the act was capable of severance; that its relation to ralation to railroad corporations was not essentially and inseparably connected in substance with its relation to other corporations; and that, therefore, whether it was constitutional or not as to other corporations, it might be sustained as to railroad corporations.
In Leep v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 58 Ark. 407, 23 L. R. A. 264, 25 S. W. 75, and St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Paul, 64 Ark. 83, 37 L. R. A. 504, 40 S. W. 705, an act of Arkansas of March 25, 1889, was held unconstitutional by the supreme court of that state so far as affecting natural persons, and sutained in respect of corporations; and in St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Paul, 173 U. S. 404, 43 L. ed. 746, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419, that view of the act was accepted by this court because that court had so decided.
Considering this statute as applying to railroad corporations only, we think it cannot be regarded as in conflict with the 14th Amendment. Missouri...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
... ... v. MISSISSIPPI COTTON OIL COMPANY Supreme Court of Mississippi April 27, 1903 ... court arises from considering the case of Tullis v. Lake ... Erie R. R. Co., 175 U.S. 353 (20 ... railroad employe, and the court simply contented itself by ... S.Ct. 305; 41 L. Ed., 683); Western Union Tel. Co. v ... Indiana, 165 U.S. 109 (17 ... ...
-
New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander
... ... Manufacturing Company and others for wrongful death of her ... & M. V. R. R. Co., 77 Miss. 494; ... Railroad Co. v. Elliott, 149 U.S ... 266, 271; 2 ... 209, 39 L.Ed. 675; Tullis v. Railroad ... Co., 175 U.S. 348, 44 L.Ed ... cents per day. Erie R. Co. v ... McCormick, 24 O. C. C. 86 ... ...
-
Mathison v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co.
... ... MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.1 ... Nos. 18,759-(44) ... Supreme Court of ... , casual employees and such railroads and railroad employees as are within the legislative domain of ... S. 210, 8 Sup. Ct. 1176, 32 L. ed. 109; Tullis v. Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co ... 175 U. S. 348, 20 ... ...
-
State v. Schlitz Brewing Co.
...condemned as unconstitutional and invalid. Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164, 20 Sup. Ct. 666, 44 L. Ed. 716; Tullis v. Railroad Co., 175 U. S. 348, 20 Sup. Ct. 136, 44 L. Ed. 192; Insurance Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 19 Sup. Ct. 281, 43 L. Ed. 552; Magoun v. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 18 Sup. ......