Lehigh Valley Railroad Company v. James Barlow

CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcReynolds
CitationLehigh Valley Railroad Company v. James Barlow, 244 U.S. 183, 37 S.Ct. 515, 61 L.Ed. 1070 (1917)
Decision Date21 May 1917
Docket NumberNo. 194,194
PartiesLEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., 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 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 10they 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...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
93 cases
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Adm'x
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1930
    ... ... the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment adverse ... to defendant, and ... Cf. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183, 37 ... three children, James Lee, age 8 years, Hazel Elizabeth, age ... 6 ... ...
  • Kinzell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1918
    ... ... CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & St. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme Court of ... trestle and to support the track of a railroad ... company engaged in the transportation of ... 353, 37 S.Ct. 170, ... 61 L.Ed. 358; Lehigh Valley Ry. Co. v. Barlow, 244 ... U.S. 183, 37 ... Gray, W. D. Keeton, W. F. McNaughton and James A. Wayne, for ... Respondent ... The ... ...
  • Kepner v. Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1929
    ...was not a movement in interstate commerce. Kozimko v. Hines, 268 Fed. 507; Schauffele v. Director Gen., 276 Fed. 115; Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183; C.B. & Q. v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177; Bishop v. Delano, 265 Fed. 263. (5) The general instruction given on behalf of the......
  • Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1938
    ...status is terminated. [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 emplo......
  • Get Started for Free