Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Jacob Anderson, No. 319
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | McKenna |
| Citation | 58 L.Ed. 983,233 U.S. 325,34 S.Ct. 599 |
| Parties | KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. JACOB ANDERSON |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 319 |
v.
JACOB ANDERSON.
Page 326
Messrs. Samuel W. Moore, Frank H. Moore, and James B. McDonough for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 326 intentionally omitted]
Page 327
No brief was filed for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:
Error to review a judgment of the supreme court of the state, affirming a judgment by which defendant in error was awarded against plaintiff in error (herein called the railway company) double damages and attorney's fee for a mare killed by one of the railway company's trains.
The judgment was recovered under a statute of the state which the railway company attacked in the courts below and attacks here, on the ground that it violates the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States. The statute provides that when any stock is killed or injured by railroad trains running in the state, the officers of the train shall cause the station master or overseer at the nearest station house to give notice of the fact by posting and by advertisement, and, on failure to so advertise, the owner shall recover double damages for all stock killed and not advertised. 'And said railroad shall pay the owner of such stock within thirty days after notice is served on such railroad by such owner. Failure to do so shall entitle said owner to double the amount of damages
Page 328
awarded him by any jury trying such cause, and a reasonable attorney's fee.' [Ark. Laws, 1907, p. 144.]
If a suit be brought after the thirty days have expired, and the owner recover ' a less amount of damages than he sues for, then such owner shall recover only the amount given him by said jury, and not be entitled to recover any attorney's fee.'
For its contention that the act offends the Constitution of the United States the railway company relies on St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U. S. 354, 56 L. ed. 799, 42 L.R.A.(N.S.) 102, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493.
In that case, however, there was a demand for $500 damages. The railway company refused to pay it. The owner sued for $400 and recovered a verdict for that amount, and the court, deeming the statute applicable, gave judgment for double that amount and an attorney's fee of $50. The supreme court sustained the judgment against the contention of the railway company that the statute so applied was repugnant to the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States. This court reversed the judgment, holding that so far as the statute was held to justify the imposition of double damages where there was demand for one sum and an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Queensboro Farms Products v. Wickard, No. 319.
...I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U.S. 354, 32 S.Ct. 493, 56 L.Ed. 799, 42 L.R.A.,N.S., 102. 13a Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U.S. 325, 329, 330, 34 S.Ct. 599, 58 L.Ed. 983; cf. 40 Yale L.J. 1110 13b See, e.g., Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U.S. 114, 118, 20 S.Ct. 284, 44 L.Ed. 39......
-
Nashville St Ry v. Walters, No. 183
...this was a proper engineering project, properly conceived, located, designed and constructed.' 5 Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U.S. 325, 34 S.Ct. 599, 58 L.Ed. 983; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 295, 330, 5 S.Ct. 903, 962, 29 L.Ed. 185, 207. Compare Dahnke-Walker Mil......
-
Overnight Motor Transp Co v. Missel, No. 939
...29 L.Ed. 463; Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26, 9 S.Ct. 207, 32 L.Ed. 585; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U.S. 325, 34 S.Ct. 599, 58 L.Ed. 983. ...
-
Milling Co v. Bondurant, DAHNKE-WALKER
...Ry. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U. S. 354, 32 Sup. Ct. 493, 56 L. Ed. 799, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 102; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U. S. 325, 34 Sup. Ct. 599, 58 L. Ed. 983. Besides, a litigant can be heard to question a statute's validity only when and so far as it is being or is abou......
-
Queensboro Farms Products v. Wickard, No. 319.
...I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U.S. 354, 32 S.Ct. 493, 56 L.Ed. 799, 42 L.R.A.,N.S., 102. 13a Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U.S. 325, 329, 330, 34 S.Ct. 599, 58 L.Ed. 983; cf. 40 Yale L.J. 1110 13b See, e.g., Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U.S. 114, 118, 20 S.Ct. 284, 44 L.Ed. 39......
-
Nashville St Ry v. Walters, No. 183
...this was a proper engineering project, properly conceived, located, designed and constructed.' 5 Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U.S. 325, 34 S.Ct. 599, 58 L.Ed. 983; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 295, 330, 5 S.Ct. 903, 962, 29 L.Ed. 185, 207. Compare Dahnke-Walker Mil......
-
Overnight Motor Transp Co v. Missel, No. 939
...29 L.Ed. 463; Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26, 9 S.Ct. 207, 32 L.Ed. 585; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U.S. 325, 34 S.Ct. 599, 58 L.Ed. 983. ...
-
Milling Co v. Bondurant, DAHNKE-WALKER
...Ry. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U. S. 354, 32 Sup. Ct. 493, 56 L. Ed. 799, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 102; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U. S. 325, 34 Sup. Ct. 599, 58 L. Ed. 983. Besides, a litigant can be heard to question a statute's validity only when and so far as it is being or is abou......