Lee v. Central of Georgia Ry Co, No. 150
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BRANDEIS |
| Citation | 64 L.Ed. 482,40 S.Ct. 254,252 U.S. 109 |
| Parties | LEE v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. et al |
| Docket Number | No. 150 |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1920 |
v.
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. et al.
Messrs. Alexander A. Lawrence and William W. Osborne, both of Savannah, Ga., for petitioner.
Messrs. H. W. Johnson and T. M. Cunningham, Jr., both of Savannah, Ga., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
An injured employe brought an action in a state court of Georgia jointly against a railroad and its engineer, and sought in a single count, which alleged concurring negligence, to recover damages from the company under the federal Employers' Liability Act (Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665), and from the individual defendant under the common law. Each defendant filed a special demurrer on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties defendant. The demurrers
Page 110
were overruled by the trial court. The Court of Appeals—an intermediate appellate court to which the case went on exceptions certified to the Supreme Court of the state the question whether such joinder was permissible. It answered in the negative. 147 Ga. 428, 94 S. E. 558. Thereupon the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court (21 Ga. App. 558, 94 S. E. 888), and certiorari to the Supreme Court of the state was refused. The plaintiff then applied to this court for a writ of certiorari on the ground that he had been denied rights conferred by federal law, and the writ was granted.
Whether two causes of action may be joined i. e. single count or whether two persons may be sued in a single count are matters of pleading and practice relating solely to the form of the remedy. When they arise in state courts the final determination of such matters ordinarily rests with the state tribunals, even if the rights there being enforced are created by federal law. John v. Paullin, 231 U. S. 583, 34 Sup. Ct. 178, 58 L. Ed. 381; Nevada-California-Oregon Railway v. Burrus, 244 U. S. 103, 37 Sup. Ct. 576, 61 L. Ed. 1019. This has been specifically held in cases arising under the federal Employers' Liability Act. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211, 36 Sup. Ct. 595, 60 L. Ed. 961, L. R. A. 1917A, 86, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 505; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Mims, 242 U. S. 532, 37 Sup. Ct. 188, 61 L. Ed. 476; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Holloway, 246 U. S. 525, 38 Sup. Ct. 379, 62 L. Ed. 867. It is only when matters nominally of procedure are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pizer v. Hunt
...Vermont Railway v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 513, 35 S. Ct. 865, 59 L. Ed. 1433, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 252;Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway, 252 U. S. 109, 110, 40 S. Ct. 254, 64 L. Ed. 482;[253 Mass. 333]Kansas City Western Railway v. McAdow, 240 U. S. 51, 36 S. Ct. 252, 60 L. Ed. 520;Washington v......
-
Taylor v. Lumaghi Coal Co., No. 38756.
...common-law rights of such employees against third persons. Cott v. Erie R. Co., 231 N.Y. 67, 131 N.E. 737; Lee v. Central Georgia R. Co., 252 U.S. 109, 40 S. Ct. 254, 64 L. Ed. 482; Schosboek v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 191 Wash. 425, 71 Pac. (2d) 548. (3) Since at the time in questi......
-
United Gas Public Service Co v. State of Texas, No. 13
...satisfied all state requirements. John v. Paullin, 231 U.S. 583, 585, 34 S.Ct. 178, 58 L.Ed. 381; Lee v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 252 U.S. 109, 110, 40 S.Ct. 254, 64 L.Ed. 482; Central Union Co. v. Edwardsville, 269 U.S. 190, 194, 195, 46 S.Ct. 90, 91, 70 L.Ed. 229. As to the requirement ......
-
Lynch v. New York, N.H.&H.R.R.
...266, at page 270, 186 N.E. 653: ‘Apart from matters of procedure not affecting substantive rights (Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway, 252 U.S. 109, 110, 40 S.Ct. 254, 64 L.Ed. 482), the ‘case is governed by the act and the applicable principles of common law as established and applied in fe......
-
Pizer v. Hunt
...Vermont Railway v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 513, 35 S. Ct. 865, 59 L. Ed. 1433, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 252;Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway, 252 U. S. 109, 110, 40 S. Ct. 254, 64 L. Ed. 482;[253 Mass. 333]Kansas City Western Railway v. McAdow, 240 U. S. 51, 36 S. Ct. 252, 60 L. Ed. 520;Washington v......
-
Taylor v. Lumaghi Coal Co., No. 38756.
...common-law rights of such employees against third persons. Cott v. Erie R. Co., 231 N.Y. 67, 131 N.E. 737; Lee v. Central Georgia R. Co., 252 U.S. 109, 40 S. Ct. 254, 64 L. Ed. 482; Schosboek v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 191 Wash. 425, 71 Pac. (2d) 548. (3) Since at the time in questi......
-
United Gas Public Service Co v. State of Texas, No. 13
...satisfied all state requirements. John v. Paullin, 231 U.S. 583, 585, 34 S.Ct. 178, 58 L.Ed. 381; Lee v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 252 U.S. 109, 110, 40 S.Ct. 254, 64 L.Ed. 482; Central Union Co. v. Edwardsville, 269 U.S. 190, 194, 195, 46 S.Ct. 90, 91, 70 L.Ed. 229. As to the requirement ......
-
Lynch v. New York, N.H.&H.R.R.
...266, at page 270, 186 N.E. 653: ‘Apart from matters of procedure not affecting substantive rights (Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway, 252 U.S. 109, 110, 40 S.Ct. 254, 64 L.Ed. 482), the ‘case is governed by the act and the applicable principles of common law as established and applied in fe......