Mondou v. N.Y., N. H. & H. R. Co.

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtBALDWIN, C. J.
Citation82 Conn. 373,73 A. 762
PartiesMONDOU v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.
Decision Date20 July 1909
73 A. 762
82 Conn. 373

MONDOU
v.
NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 20, 1909.


Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Action by Edgar G. Mondou against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant on sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action by an employé of the defendant under the act of Congress relating to the liability of common carriers by railroad to their employés, approved April 22, 1908 (chapter 149, 35 Stat. 65), to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the plaintiff's fellow servant. A demurrer to the complaint upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of the act of Congress was sustained, and judgment rendered for the defendant. No error.

Donald G. Perkins and Thomas J. Kelly, for appellant.

Edward D. Robbins and Michael Kenealy, for appellee.

E. O. Harrison and Philip Doherty, for the United States.

BALDWIN, C. J. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff while employed by the defendant as a fireman on a railroad train running from Midway, Conn., to the Harlem river, in New York, was injured while in the exercise of due care by the negligence of the

defendant and its servants and agents in receiving a foreign car, which was defective and in a dangerous condition, without inspecting it, and putting it into another train running in the opposite direction from the Harlem river to Midway, in consequence of which, as the trains met in Guilford in this state on August 5, 1908, the top of the car tilted over and struck the plaintiff. It con-eludes thus: "The plaintiff claims $25,000 damages under and by force of the act of Congress entitled 'An act relating to the liability of common carriers by railroad to their employés in certain cases,' approved April 22, 1908 (chapter 149, 35 Stat. 65)." The suit was brought in October, 1908. A demurrer was filed attacking both the complaint and the claim for relief. Both parties have treated the action as one brought upon the act of Congress of April 22, 1908, and we shall therefore accept that view, as did the superior court.

Thus considered, the demurrer was properly sustained for reasons fully stated in the case of Hoxie v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 73 Atl. 754. We think it proper, however, to observe, in order to avoid any misconception of our position in subsequent cases, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Brownell v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 24, 1956
    ...injuries was not allowed in this state. The decision in the Hoxie case controlled our decision in Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 82 Conn. 373, 375, 73 A. 762, which was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and there reversed. Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 223 ......
  • SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 15, 1912
    ...v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130. Existence of jurisdiction in a court implies the duty to exercise it notwithstanding such duty may be onerous. 82 Conn. 373 reversed; 173 F. 49 No. 120 (Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.). This was an action by a citizen of Connecticut against ......
  • Lapinski v. Copacino.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 21, 1944
    ...jurisdiction of a case arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 82 Conn. 373, 73 A. 762; and see Hoxie v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 82 Conn. 352, 73 A. 754, 38 A.2d 59617 Ann.Cas. 324. There was in the act in ques......
  • Hoxie v. N.Y., N. H. & H. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 20, 1909
    ...in any degree to the injury, although it be partly due to the act or omission of a mere stranger. There can be no contribution between 73 A. 762 wrongdoers. If, therefore, the carrier in such a case could be held under the statute, his property would be taken to pay for a wrong mainly, perh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Brownell v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 24, 1956
    ...injuries was not allowed in this state. The decision in the Hoxie case controlled our decision in Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 82 Conn. 373, 375, 73 A. 762, which was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and there reversed. Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 223 ......
  • SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 15, 1912
    ...v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130. Existence of jurisdiction in a court implies the duty to exercise it notwithstanding such duty may be onerous. 82 Conn. 373 reversed; 173 F. 49 No. 120 (Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.). This was an action by a citizen of Connecticut against ......
  • Lapinski v. Copacino.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 21, 1944
    ...jurisdiction of a case arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 82 Conn. 373, 73 A. 762; and see Hoxie v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 82 Conn. 352, 73 A. 754, 38 A.2d 59617 Ann.Cas. 324. There was in the act in ques......
  • Hoxie v. N.Y., N. H. & H. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 20, 1909
    ...in any degree to the injury, although it be partly due to the act or omission of a mere stranger. There can be no contribution between 73 A. 762 wrongdoers. If, therefore, the carrier in such a case could be held under the statute, his property would be taken to pay for a wrong mainly, perh......
  • 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