Kimball v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1892
• Citation: 31 N.E. 697,157 Mass. 7
• Parties: KIMBALL et al. v. ST. LOUIS & S.F. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

157 Mass. 7

31 N.E. 697

KIMBALL et al. v. ST. LOUIS & S.F. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 23, 1892

COUNSEL

J. Lowell and S.C. Eastman, for plaintiffs.

R. Olney, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

The plaintiffs necessarily will be referred to the courts of Missouri to compel the defendant to respect their rights in case compulsion is necessary. The most that we can do, if they have the right they claim, is to reduce it to res adjudicata. Whether they have that right is a question of Missouri law, touching the internal affairs of a Missouri corporation. The objection to our proceeding with the case was taken at the outset, and we are of opinion that it must prevail. We assume, for the purposes of decision, that we have jurisdiction in such a case; that, if we proceeded to a decree upon the merits, it would be binding in Missouri. But it seems to us clear that, as among the states of this Union, the plaintiffs ought to resort in the first instance to that court which alone can declare the law of the case with authority, and can compel obedience to it by force. It would be a misuse of our powers to attempt to control the action of those courts, in a case like this, by an adjudication which would depend upon them for enforcement, and which they might say had mistaken the Missouri law. Smith v. Insurance Co., 14 Allen, 336, 343; Kansas & E.R. Const. Co. v. Topeka, S. & W.R. Co., 135 Mass. 34; Pierce v. Assurance Soc., 145 Mass. 56, 63, 12 N.E. 858; Gregory v. Railroad Co., 40 N.J.Eq. 38; Mining Co. v. Field, 64 Md. 151, 154, 20 Atl.Rep. 1039. The later New York cases seem to be put on the construction of a statute. Prouty v. Railroad, 1 Hun, 655, 658; Ives v. Smith, (Sup.) 3 N.Y.Supp. 645, 651. Compare Howell v. Railway Co., 51 Barb. 378; Berford v. Iron Mine, (Super.N.Y.) 4 N.Y.Supp. 836; Fisher v. Insurance Co., 52 N.Y.Super.Ct.R. 179, 189. In Boardman v. Railway Co., 84 N.Y. 157, the defendant was consolidated under the laws of the state of New York, among others.

Bill dismissed.