Lehigh Valley Railroad Company v. James Barlow, No. 194
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | McReynolds |
| Citation | 244 U.S. 183,61 L.Ed. 1070,37 S.Ct. 515 |
| Parties | LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. JAMES H. BARLOW |
| Docket Number | No. 194 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1917 |
v.
JAMES H. BARLOW.
Messrs. Peter F. MeAllister and F. O. McCleary for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Clayton R. Lusk for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:
Basing his claim upon the Federal Employers' Liability Act, defendant in error sought damages for personal injuries. The New York court of appeals affirmed a judgment in his favor (214 N. Y. 116, 107 N. E. 814), and the question now presented is whether there is evidence tending to show that he was injured while engaging in interstate commerce. The accident occurred July 27, 1912, when, as member of a switching crew, he was assisting in placing three cars containing supply coal for plaintiff in error on an unloading trestle within its yards at Cortland, New York. These
Page 184
cars belonged to it, and with their contents had passed over its line from Sayre, Pennsylvania. After being received in the Cortland yards—one July 3 and two July 10—they remained there upon sidings and switches until removed to the trestle on the 27th.
We think their interstate movement terminated before the cars left the sidings, and that while removing them the switching crew was not employed in interstate commerce. The essential facts in Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177, 60 L. ed. 941, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517, 11 N. C. C. A. 992, did not materially differ from those now presented. There we sustained a recovery by an employee, holding he was not engaged in interstate commerce; and that decision is in conflict with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. The judgment under review must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co., No. 18850.
...[Aldridge v. Wabash Ry. Co., 73 S.W. (2d) 401; Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177; Leigh Valley Ry. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183; Baltimore & C.S.W. Ry. Co. v. Settle, 260 U.S. The purport of letters and documents that were being transported by the employee at the time he was......
-
L. & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Admrx.
...coaled. It was held to be too remote from interstate commerce to be a part of it in a practical sense. Cf. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183, 37 S. Ct. 515, 61 L. Ed. 1070. In Illinois C.R. Co. v. Behren's Adm'r, 233 U.S. 473, 34 S. Ct. 646, 58 L. Ed. 1051, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163, ......
-
Kinzell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...L. R. A. 1917D, 1; Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353, 37 S.Ct. 170, 61 L.Ed. 358; Lehigh Valley Ry. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183, 37 S.Ct. 515, 61 L.Ed. 1070; Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Peery, 242 U.S. 292, 37 S.Ct. 122, 61 L.Ed. 309; Baltimore & O. Ry. Co. v. Branson, 242......
-
Boyer v. Pa. R. Co., No. 48.
...902, 59 L. Ed. 1397; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177, 36 S. Ct. 517, 60 L. Ed. 941; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U. S. 183, 37 S. Ct. 515, 61 L. Ed. The employer in the case at bar invokes this distinction between original construction work and the repair or main......
-
Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co., No. 18850.
...[Aldridge v. Wabash Ry. Co., 73 S.W. (2d) 401; Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177; Leigh Valley Ry. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183; Baltimore & C.S.W. Ry. Co. v. Settle, 260 U.S. The purport of letters and documents that were being transported by the employee at the time he was......
-
L. & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Admrx.
...coaled. It was held to be too remote from interstate commerce to be a part of it in a practical sense. Cf. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183, 37 S. Ct. 515, 61 L. Ed. 1070. In Illinois C.R. Co. v. Behren's Adm'r, 233 U.S. 473, 34 S. Ct. 646, 58 L. Ed. 1051, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163, ......
-
Kinzell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...L. R. A. 1917D, 1; Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353, 37 S.Ct. 170, 61 L.Ed. 358; Lehigh Valley Ry. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183, 37 S.Ct. 515, 61 L.Ed. 1070; Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Peery, 242 U.S. 292, 37 S.Ct. 122, 61 L.Ed. 309; Baltimore & O. Ry. Co. v. Branson, 242......
-
Boyer v. Pa. R. Co., No. 48.
...902, 59 L. Ed. 1397; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177, 36 S. Ct. 517, 60 L. Ed. 941; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U. S. 183, 37 S. Ct. 515, 61 L. Ed. The employer in the case at bar invokes this distinction between original construction work and the repair or main......