Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Sam Leslie, No. 538
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | McReynolds |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 844,238 U.S. 599,59 L.Ed. 1478 |
| Parties | KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. SAM E. LESLIE, Administrator of the Estate of Leslie Old, Deceased |
| Docket Number | No. 538 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1915 |
v.
SAM E. LESLIE, Administrator of the Estate of Leslie Old, Deceased.
Page 600
Messrs. James B. McDonough, Frank H. Moore, and Samuel W. Moore for plaintiff in error.
Mr. W. P. Feazel for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 600 intentionally omitted]
Page 601
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:
In May, 1913, Sam E. Leslie, administrator, brought this suit under the Federal employers' liability act (35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8657), as amended April 5, 1910 (36 Stat. at L. 291, chap. 143, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8662), against the Kansas City Southern Railway Company in the circuit court, Little River county, Arkansas, alleging that the injury and death of Leslie Old (March 24, 1913) resulted from its negligence, and demanding $10,000 for pain and suffering endured by deceased and $15,000 pecuniary damage to the wife and young child. The company unsuccessfully sought to remove the case; there was trial to a jury and verdict for $25,000 without apportionment, a remittitur of $7,000, and a final unqualified judgment in favor of the administrator for $18,000, which the supreme court of Arkansas affirmed (112 Ark. 305, 167 S. W. 83) [Fastcase Editorial Note: The Court's reference to 112 Ark. 305, 167 S. W. 83 is short for Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Leslie, 112 Ark. 305, 167 S. W. 83.]. Three substantial assignments of error demand consideration.
Page 602
1. The deceased and his administrator were citizens and residents of Arkansas. The railway company, a Missouri corporation, seasonably set up nonresidence and demanded removal of the cause to the United States district court. Its petition therefor was denied and this is now assigned as error.
The above-mentioned amendment of 1910 declares: 'The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States under this act shall be concurrent with that of the courts of the several states, and no case arising under this act and brought in any state court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States.' Section 28, Judicial Code, effective January 1, 1912 [36 Stat. at L. 1095, chap. 231, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 1010], specifies causes removable from state courts by nonresident defendants and concludes: 'Provided, That no case arising under an act entitled 'An Act Relating to the Liability of Common Carriers by Railroad to Their Employees in Certain Cases,' approved April twenty-second, nineteen hundred and eight, or any amendment thereto, and brought in any state court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States.' The language of both amendment and Judicial Code, we think, clearly inhibits removal of a cause arising under the act from a state court upon the sole ground of diversity of citizenship. The same conclusion has been announced frequently by lower Federal courts. Symonds v. St. Louis & S. E. R. Co. 192 Fed. 353, 356;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland, 2112.
...35 Sup.Ct. 32, 59 L.Ed. 242; St. Louis etc., Co. v. Craft, 237 U.S. 648, 35 Sup.Ct. 704, 59 L.Ed. 1160; Kansas City S.R. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U.S. 599, 35 Sup.Ct. 844, 59 L.Ed. 1478. Excepting as enlarged by statute, the pecuniary loss of a widow and children resulting from death can be no mo......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett, 6 Div. 322
...Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 33 S.Ct. 192, 57 L.Ed. 417, Ann.Cas.1914C, 176; C. & O.R.R. Co. v. Kelly, supra; K.C.S. Ry. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U.S. 599, 35 S.Ct. 844, 59 L.Ed. 1478, 1480; Roberts' Fed. Liab. of Carriers, § 618. That is to say, the present cash value of the "future benefits of......
-
L. & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Admrx.
...115 Ark. 483, 171 S.W. 1185, L.R.A. 1916C, page 817; Id., 237 U.S. 648, 35 S. Ct. 704, 59 L. Ed. 1160; Kansas City S.R. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U.S. 599, 35 S. Ct. 844, 59 L. Ed. 1478; Great Northern R. Co. v. Capitol Trust Co., 242 U.S. 144, 37 S. Ct. 41, 61 L. Ed. 208, L.R.A. 1917E, page 1050.......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Humphries, 31708
...238 U.S. 507; 59 L.Ed. 1433. Damages are not limited to railroad earnings alone. St. Louis & I. M. R. R. Co. v. Craft, 237 U.S. 648, 59 L.Ed. 1478. Duties of common carriers in respect of safety of their employees while both engaged in interstate commerce, [174 Miss. 464] and liability for ......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett, 6 Div. 322
...Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 33 S.Ct. 192, 57 L.Ed. 417, Ann.Cas.1914C, 176; C. & O.R.R. Co. v. Kelly, supra; K.C.S. Ry. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U.S. 599, 35 S.Ct. 844, 59 L.Ed. 1478, 1480; Roberts' Fed. Liab. of Carriers, § 618. That is to say, the present cash value of the "future benefits of......
-
L. & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Admrx.
...115 Ark. 483, 171 S.W. 1185, L.R.A. 1916C, page 817; Id., 237 U.S. 648, 35 S. Ct. 704, 59 L. Ed. 1160; Kansas City S.R. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U.S. 599, 35 S. Ct. 844, 59 L. Ed. 1478; Great Northern R. Co. v. Capitol Trust Co., 242 U.S. 144, 37 S. Ct. 41, 61 L. Ed. 208, L.R.A. 1917E, page 1050.......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Humphries, 31708
...238 U.S. 507; 59 L.Ed. 1433. Damages are not limited to railroad earnings alone. St. Louis & I. M. R. R. Co. v. Craft, 237 U.S. 648, 59 L.Ed. 1478. Duties of common carriers in respect of safety of their employees while both engaged in interstate commerce, [174 Miss. 464] and liability for ......
-
CSX TRANS., INC. v. Miller, No. 1142
...the suit is brought. (Emphasis supplied). See also Kansas C.S.R. Co. v. Leslie, 112 Ark. 305, 167 S.W. 83 (1914), rev'd on other grounds, 238 U.S. 599, 35 S.Ct. 844, 59 L.Ed. 1478; Delong v. Maine C.R. Co., 136 Me. 194, 6 A.2d 431 (1939); Avance v. Thompson, 320 Ill.App. 406, 51 N.E.2d 334 ......