Hull v. Philadelphia Ry Co, No. 151

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPITNEY
Citation64 L.Ed. 670,252 U.S. 475,40 S.Ct. 358
PartiesHULL v. PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO
Decision Date19 April 1920
Docket NumberNo. 151

252 U.S. 475
40 S.Ct. 358
64 L.Ed. 670
HULL

v.

PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO.

No. 151.
Argued Jan. 16, 1920.
Decided April 19, 1920.

Messrs. Charles D. Wagaman and Harvey R. Spessard, both of Hagerstown, Md., for petitioner.

Page 476

Mr. Henry H. Keedy, Jr., of Hagerstown, Md., for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from page 476 intentionally omitted]

Page 477

Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action brought in a state court of Maryland under the federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908 (35 Stat. 65, c. 149 [Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665]), as amended April 5, 1910 (36 Stat. 291, c. 143), by petitioner, as administratrix of John M. Hull, deceased, to recover damages because of his death, occurring, as alleged, while he was employed by defendant in interstate commerce. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendant, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the resulting judgment upon the ground that the deceased, at the time he was killed, was not in the employ of defendant within the meaning of the act of Congress (132 Md. 540, 104 Atl. 274), and upon this federal question the case is brought here by certiorari.

The pertinent facts are not in dispute. John M. Hull, at the time he was killed and for a long time before, was in the general employ of the Western Maryland Railway Company, an interstate carrier operating, among other lines, a railway from Hagerstown, Md., to Lurgan, Pa., at which point it connected with a railway owned and operated by defendant, the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, which extended from Lurgan to Rutherford, in the same state. Through freight trains were operated from Hagerstown to Rutherford over these two lines, and Hull was employed as a brakeman on such a train at the time he received the fatal injuries. On the previous day a crew employed by the Western Maryland Railway Company, and of which he was a member, had taken a train hauled by a Western Maryland engine from Hagerstown to Rutherford, and at the time in question the same crew was returning with a train from Rutherford

Page 478

to Hagerstown. Before starting they received instructions from the yardmaster at Rutherford (an employe of defendant company) as to the operation of the train, including directions to pick up seven cars at Harrisburg. They proceeded from Rutherford to Harrisburg, stopped there for the purpose of picking up the seven cars, and while this was being done Hull was run over and killed by one of defendant's locomotives.

The through freight service was conducted under a written agreement between the two railway companies, which was introduced in evidence and constitutes the chief reliance of petitioner. Its provisions, so far as they need to be quoted, are as follows:

'2. Freight trains to run through between Hagerstown and Rutherford in both directions and each company agrees to supply motive power in the above proportions [based upon mileage] so as to equalize the service performed.

* * *

'4. Crews of each road to run through with their engines over the line of the other company.

'5. Each company to compensate the other for the use of the other's engines and crews on their line at the following rates per hour: * * * Time to begin at Rutherford n d Hagerstown when crew is called for. * * * Time to cease when the engines arrive on the fire track at Rutherford and Hagerstown. * * *

'6. The division of earnings of the traffic not to be disturbed or in any way affected by this arrangement.

'7. Each company to furnish fuel and other supplies to its own engines and crews; any furnished by one to the other to be upon agreed uniform rates.

* * *

'9. Neither company to be expected to do the engine cleaning and wiping for the other; where done, a charge of seventy-five (75) cents per engine to be made.

Page 479

'10. Each company to be responsible and bear all damage and expenses to persons and property caused by all accidents upon its road.

* * *

'16. Each company to relieve and turn as promptly as practicable the engines and crews of the other at ends of runs.

'17. Each company to have the right to object and to enforce objection to any unsatisfactory employe of the other running upon its lines.

'18. All cases of violation of rules or other derelictions by the employes of one company while upon the road of the other shall be promptly investigated by the owning company, and the result reported to the employing company, with or without suggestions for disciplining, the employing company to report to the other the action taken.

'19. Accident reports on prescribed forms to be promptly made of all such occurrences, and where a crew of one company is operating upon the road of the other, a copy must be sent to the proper officer of each company.

'20. Employes of each company to be required to report promptly, on notice, to the proper officer of the other, for investigations of accidents, etc., the fullest co-operation to be given by the one company to the other in all such matters.

'21. The employes of each company while upon the tracks of the other shall be subject to and conform to the rules, regulations, discipline and orders of the owning company.'

We hardly need repeat the statement made in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 practice notes
  • Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 39573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 8, 1946
    ...v. B. & O.R. Co., 237 U.S. 84, 59 L. Ed. 849; C. & A.R. Co. v. Wagner, 239 U.S. 452, 60 L. Ed. 379; Hull v. Philadelphia & Reading R. Co., 252 U.S. 475, 64 L. Ed. 67. (3) Originally the lessor-lessee rule was founded upon the theory that a state franchise to a railroad company, especially b......
  • Graham v. Thompson, No. 39898.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 27, 1948
    ...to recover judgment against this defendant under said act. Sec. 51, Title 45, United States Code Annotated; Hull v. Philadelphia Ry. Co., 252 U.S. 475, 40 S. Ct. 358; Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio, 237 U.S. 84, 35 S. Ct. 491; Stevenson v. Lake Terminal Ry. Co., 42 Fed. (2d) 357; Chicago, R.I......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnston, 6 Div. 775.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1920
    ...interstate commerce at the time he was injured; this being one of the essential averments of his complaint. Hull v. Philadelphia Ry. Co., 252 U.S. 475, 40 S.Ct. 358, 64 L.Ed. 670; Robinson v. Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co,, 237 U.S. 84, 94, 35 S.Ct. 491, 59 L.Ed. 849. On original consideration of t......
  • 42 498 Kelley v. Southern Pacific Company 8212 1270, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1974
    ...See Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 237 U.S. 84, 94, 35 S.Ct. 491, 494, 59 L.Ed. 849 (1915); Hull v. Philadelphia & Reading R. Co., 252 U.S. 475, 479, 40 S.Ct. 358, 359, 64 L.Ed. 670 (1920); Baker v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 359 U.S. 227, 228, 79 S.Ct. 664, 665, 3 L.Ed.2d 756 (1959). In......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
64 cases
  • Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 39573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 8, 1946
    ...v. B. & O.R. Co., 237 U.S. 84, 59 L. Ed. 849; C. & A.R. Co. v. Wagner, 239 U.S. 452, 60 L. Ed. 379; Hull v. Philadelphia & Reading R. Co., 252 U.S. 475, 64 L. Ed. 67. (3) Originally the lessor-lessee rule was founded upon the theory that a state franchise to a railroad company, especially b......
  • Graham v. Thompson, No. 39898.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 27, 1948
    ...to recover judgment against this defendant under said act. Sec. 51, Title 45, United States Code Annotated; Hull v. Philadelphia Ry. Co., 252 U.S. 475, 40 S. Ct. 358; Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio, 237 U.S. 84, 35 S. Ct. 491; Stevenson v. Lake Terminal Ry. Co., 42 Fed. (2d) 357; Chicago, R.I......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnston, 6 Div. 775.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1920
    ...interstate commerce at the time he was injured; this being one of the essential averments of his complaint. Hull v. Philadelphia Ry. Co., 252 U.S. 475, 40 S.Ct. 358, 64 L.Ed. 670; Robinson v. Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co,, 237 U.S. 84, 94, 35 S.Ct. 491, 59 L.Ed. 849. On original consideration of t......
  • 42 498 Kelley v. Southern Pacific Company 8212 1270, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1974
    ...See Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 237 U.S. 84, 94, 35 S.Ct. 491, 494, 59 L.Ed. 849 (1915); Hull v. Philadelphia & Reading R. Co., 252 U.S. 475, 479, 40 S.Ct. 358, 359, 64 L.Ed. 670 (1920); Baker v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 359 U.S. 227, 228, 79 S.Ct. 664, 665, 3 L.Ed.2d 756 (1959). In......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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