Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Nathan Parker, No. 330

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHolmes
Citation242 U.S. 13,37 S.Ct. 4,61 L.Ed. 119
Docket NumberNo. 330
Decision Date13 November 1916
PartiesLOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. NATHAN PARKER, as Administrator of the Estate of Edward Parker

242 U.S. 13
37 S.Ct. 4
61 L.Ed. 119
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

NATHAN PARKER, as Administrator of the Estate of Edward Parker.

No. 330.
Submitted November 1, 1916.
Decided November 13. 1916.

Page 14

Mr. Benjamin D. Warfield for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Edward C. O'Rear, J. M. Robsion, and B. G. Williams for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff's intestate was a fireman upon a switching engine which was moving upon a switch track. A caboose stood upon the main track so near to where the engine moved that the deceased struck it and was killed. His administrator brought this action against the railroad, the plaintiff in error, for causing the intestate's death, and got a verdict, which, it is admitted, cannot be sustained if the deceased was engaged in interstate commerce. The dealings of the state courts with that question are the ground for the present writ of error. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the court of appeals. 165 Ky. 658, 177 S. W. 465.

The business upon which the deceased was engaged at the moment was transferring an empty car from one switch track to another. This car was not moving in interstate commerce, and that fact was treated as conclusive by the court of appeals. In this the court was in error, for if, as there was strong evidence to show, and as the court seemed to assume, this movement was simply for the purpose of reaching and moving an interstate car, the purpose would control and the business would be interstate. The difference is marked between a mere expectation that the act done would be followed by other work of a different character, as in Illinois C. R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473, 478, 58 L. ed. 1051, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 646, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163, 10 N. C. C. A. 153, and doing the act for

Page 15

the purpose of furthering the later work. See New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U. S. 260, 263, 59 L. ed. 1298, 1299, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780, 9 N. C. C. A. 1; Pennsylvania Co. v. Donat, 239 U. S. 50, 60 L. ed. 139, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4; Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros. 222 U. S. 55, 62, 63, 56 L. ed. 92, 95, 96, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 20, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1285.

But it is necessary to see how the case was dealt with in the trial court. The railroad company did not ask to go to the jury on the question whether the deceased was engaged in interstate commerce. It simply asked the court to direct a verdict, on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
102 practice notes
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...Co. v. Dunlap, 58 Fed. (2d) 951; O'Donnell v. Director General of Railroads, 273 Pa. 375, 117 Atl. 82; L. & N. Railroad Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 13; Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303; McKay v. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. (2d) 150; B. & O. Railroad Co. v. Darling, 3 Fed. (2d) 987; Grigsby v. Ry. Co., ......
  • McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 34916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1937
    ...Ct. 556, 61 L. Ed. 1057; Pederson v. Railroad Co., 229 U.S. 146, 33 Sup. Ct. 648, 57 L. Ed. 1125; Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 13, 37 Sup. Ct. 4, 61 L. Ed. 119; Pennsylvania Co. v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50, 36 Sup. Ct. 4, 60 L. Ed. 139; Youngstown & O. Railroad Co. v. Halverst......
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32085.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...Davis, 211 Mo. App. 47, 245 S.W. 404; Glidewell v. Railroad Co., 208 Mo. App. 372, 236 S.W. 677; Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 13; B. & O. Railroad Co. v. Kast, 299 Fed. 419; Atl. Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Woods, 252 Fed. 428; Railroad Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248; Chica......
  • Landy v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 72-1202 to 72-1204.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 30, 1973
    ...a primary right of action in shareholders. See United Copper Securities Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co., 244 U.S. 261, 263, 37 S.Ct. 509, 61 L.Ed. 119 (1917); Kauffman v. Dreyfus Fund, Inc., 434 F.2d 727, 732 (3d Cir. Plaintiffs resourcefully advance the argument that they also have a right o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
102 cases
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...Co. v. Dunlap, 58 Fed. (2d) 951; O'Donnell v. Director General of Railroads, 273 Pa. 375, 117 Atl. 82; L. & N. Railroad Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 13; Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303; McKay v. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. (2d) 150; B. & O. Railroad Co. v. Darling, 3 Fed. (2d) 987; Grigsby v. Ry. Co., ......
  • McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 34916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1937
    ...Ct. 556, 61 L. Ed. 1057; Pederson v. Railroad Co., 229 U.S. 146, 33 Sup. Ct. 648, 57 L. Ed. 1125; Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 13, 37 Sup. Ct. 4, 61 L. Ed. 119; Pennsylvania Co. v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50, 36 Sup. Ct. 4, 60 L. Ed. 139; Youngstown & O. Railroad Co. v. Halverst......
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32085.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...Davis, 211 Mo. App. 47, 245 S.W. 404; Glidewell v. Railroad Co., 208 Mo. App. 372, 236 S.W. 677; Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 13; B. & O. Railroad Co. v. Kast, 299 Fed. 419; Atl. Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Woods, 252 Fed. 428; Railroad Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248; Chica......
  • Landy v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 72-1202 to 72-1204.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 30, 1973
    ...a primary right of action in shareholders. See United Copper Securities Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co., 244 U.S. 261, 263, 37 S.Ct. 509, 61 L.Ed. 119 (1917); Kauffman v. Dreyfus Fund, Inc., 434 F.2d 727, 732 (3d Cir. Plaintiffs resourcefully advance the argument that they also have a right o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT