Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Jacob Anderson, No. 319

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcKenna
Citation58 L.Ed. 983,233 U.S. 325,34 S.Ct. 599
PartiesKANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. JACOB ANDERSON
Decision Date13 April 1914
Docket NumberNo. 319

233 U.S. 325
34 S.Ct. 599
58 L.Ed. 983
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

JACOB ANDERSON.

No. 319.
Argued March 20, 1914.
Decided April 13, 1914.

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
55 practice notes
  • Queensboro Farms Products v. Wickard, No. 319.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 13, 1943
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1935
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1942
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1921
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
55 cases
  • Queensboro Farms Products v. Wickard, No. 319.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 13, 1943
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1935
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1942
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1921
    ...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......
  • 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