Missouri, Kansas Texas Railway Company of Texas v. Cade
Decision Date | 11 May 1914 |
Docket Number | No. 522,522 |
Parties | MISSOURI, KANSAS, & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS, Plff. in Err., v. L. C. CADE |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Joseph M. Bryson, Aldis B. Browne, Alexander S. Coke, and A. H. McKnight for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 643-645 intentionally omitted] No appearance for defendant in error.
This action was brought in the justice court to recover the sum of $10.75 alleged to be due as wages from the defendant (now plaintiff in error) to the plaintiff below, with an attorney's fee of $9. The fee was claimed only by virtue of an act of the legislature, approved March 19, 1909, Laws, p. 93, now forming arts. 2178 and 2179, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. 1911. Defendant specially excepted to this part of plaintiff's claim, on the ground that the act was invalid as constituting a burden upon interstate commerce, contrary to the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution and the act to regulate commerce and amendments thereof, and as violating the 'equal protection' and 'due process' clauses of the 14th Amendment. Notwithstanding these contentions, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the amount claimed, including the attorney's fee. Under the local practice, no appeal lies from a decision of the justice court to a higher state court in a case involving less than $20, and so the judgment is brought directly here by writ of error for a review of the Federal questions.
The statute in question (including its caption) is set forth in the margin. This is the same act that was held invalid under the state Constitution by the court of civil appeals in Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Loyd, ——Tex. Civ. App. ——, 132 S. W. 899, because of which decision this court, in Gulf, C.
'An Act to Regulate the Presentation and Collection of Claims for Personal Servces or for Labor Rendered or for Material Furnished, or for Overcharges in Freight or Express, or for Any Claim for Lost or Damaged Freight, or for Stock Killed or Injured by Any Person or Corporation, against Any Person or Corporation Doing Business in This State, and Providing a Reasonable Amount of Attorney's Fees to be Recovered, in Cases Where the Amount of Such Claims Shall Not Exceed Two Hundred ($200) Dollars, and Declaring an Emergency.
'Approved March 13, 1909.' & S. F. R. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U. S. 503, 56 L. ed. 860, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 542, reversed a judgment that included an attorney's fee, without passing upon the question whether the act contravened the 14th Amendment. And see Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Thorn, 227 U. S. 675, 57 L. ed. 699, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 327. Since that time the supreme court of Texas, overruling the decision in the Loyd Case, has upheld the act under the Texas Constitution, in Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Mahaffey, 105 Tex. 394, 150 S. W. 881. We must therefore now consider the Federal questions.
But first, we should note the construction placed upon the act by the state court of last resort. Section 35 of article 3 of the Constitution of 1876 declares that no bill except appropriation bills shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title; 'but if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.' In the case last mentioned (105 Tex. 394, 398), the court construed the act as limited in its operation to the purpose expressed in the title; that is, as relating only to the collection of claims not exceeding $200 in amount, and as conferring no right upon persons having claims exceeding that amount which did not exist independently of the act. In reaching this conclusion, the court said:
So far as the present attack is founded upon the commerce clause and the act to regulate commerce, it is sufficient to say that the judgment under review was not based upon a claim arising out of interstate commerce, and hence plaintiff in error does not bring itself within the class with regard to whom it claims the act to be in this respect repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 73, 76, 52 L. ed. 108, 109, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Tyler v. Registration Ct. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 409, 45 L. ed. 252, 254, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 206; Hooker v. Burr, 194 U. S. 415, 419, 48 L. ed. 1046, 1050, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 706; New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 160, 51 L. ed. 415, 422, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; Southern R. Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 524, 534, 54 L. ed. 868, 871, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540, 550, 56 L. ed. 1197, 1201, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 784; Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U. S. 260, 271, 57 L. ed. 212, 217, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; Farmers' & M. Sav. Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U. S. 516, 530, 58 L. ed. ——, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354; Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 531, 544, 58 L. ed. , 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 359.
Upon the other questions, plaintiff in error relies chiefly upon Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. ed. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255. In that case a previous act of the legislature of Texas (act of April 5, 1889, Laws p. 131; Supp. to Sayles's Tex. Civ. Stat. art. 4266a; p. 768) was held repugnant to the 14th Amendment. That act allowed the recovery of plaintiff's attorneys' fees in certain classes of cases, but only where the defendant was a railroad company, and it was adjudged to be invalid...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Rice v. Evans-Terry Co
... ... accounts, against the Evans-Terry Company. From a decree for ... defendant, complainants ... v. Maryland, 4 L.Ed. 579; Railway Co. v. Brennan, ... Sheriff, 69 Miss. 103, 107; ... 609, 43 L.Ed. 909; ... Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U.S. 114, 20 S.Ct. 284, 44 ... L.Ed. 92; Missouri, Kansas & T. [173 Miss. 538] ... Ry. Co. v ... ...
-
State ex rel. Jordan, Dist. Atty. v. Gilmer Grocery Co.
... ... attorney, against the Gilmer Grocery Company. From the ... judgment, the state appeals ... 294, 5 West Rep. 155; Missouri v ... Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 21 L.R.A. 789; ... 1, 71 L.Ed. 893; Mugler v. Kansas ... City, 123 U.S. 623, 31 L.Ed. 205; Merrick ... case of Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Cade, ... 233 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 678, 680, ... ...
-
Ex Parte Francis
... ... Cr. App.) 170 S.W ... 749; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31 ... L.Ed. 205; ... of America v. State of Missouri, ... ex inf. Attorney General, 234 U.S. 199, ... 1288; Missouri, K ... & T. R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 678, 58 ... L.Ed. 1135; ... That it shall be unlawful for any express company, ... railroad company, or any common carrier or ... ...
-
Middleton v. Texas Power Light Co
...Ann. Cas. 1914B, 71; Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 144, 34 Sup. Ct. 281, 58 L. Ed. 539; Missouri, Kan. & Texas Ry. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642, 649, 650, 34 Sup. Ct. 678, 58 L. Ed. 1135; International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 215, 34 Sup. Ct. 859, 58 L. Ed. 1276, 52 L.......
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1875); then citing Frank v. Magnum, 237 U.S. 309, 340 (1915)).322. Id. at 208 (citing Mo., Kan., & Tex. Ry. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 650 (1914)).323. See also Silver v. Silver, 280 U.S. 117, 122-24 (1929) (upholding a Connecticut statute preventing guests in a car from r......