Newman Erb v. Otto Morasch

• Decision Date: 14 May 1900
• Docket Number: No. 249,249
• Citation: Newman Erb v. Otto Morasch, 177 U.S. 584, 20 S.Ct. 819, 44 L.Ed. 897 (1900)
• Parties: NEWMAN ERB, as Receiver of the Kansas City, Wyandotte, & Northwestern Railroad Company, Plff. in Err. , v. OTTO J. MORASCH and Eliza Morasch, as the Next of Kin of Irene Morasch, deceased
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

177 U.S. 584

20 S.Ct. 819

44 L.Ed. 897

NEWMAN ERB, as Receiver of the Kansas City, Wyandotte, & Northwestern Railroad Company, Plff. in Err.,

v OTTO J. MORASCH and Eliza Morasch, as the Next of Kin of Irene Morasch, deceased.

No. 249.

Submitted April 18, 1900.

Decided May 14, 1900.

Messrs. B. P. Waggener and A. H. Horton for plaintiff in error.

Mr. George B. Watson for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Brewerdelivered the opinion of the court:

While in their briefs many matters are discussed with ful- ness and elaboration by counsel for plaintiff in error, we are of opinion that those of a Federal nature involved in this record are few in number and practically determined by previous decisions of this court.Of course, all questions arising under the Constitution and laws of Kansas are, for the purposes of this case, foreclosed by the decisions of the state courts.Turner v. Wilkes County Comrs.173 U. S. 461, 43 L. ed. 768, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 464;Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77, 44 L. ed. ——, and cases cited in opinion.

In September, 1888, the city council of Kansas City passed an ordinance regulating the running of railroad trains through that city.Section 2and8 are the only ones material to the present controversy.They are as follows:

'Sec. 2.It shall be unlawful for any such engineer, conductor, or other persons having a railway engine or train of cars in charge to permit the same to be run along any track in said city at a greater speed than six miles an hour.'

'Sec. 8.The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the Interstate Rapid Transit Railway Company, excepting with reference to funeral or other processions.'

Now, in respect to the Federal questions, we remark, first, that it is the duty of a receiver, appointed by a Federal court to take charge of a railroad, to operate such road according to the laws of the state in which it is situated.25 Stat. at L. 436, chap. 866, § 2;United States v. Harris, 177 U. S. 305, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609, 44 L. ed.——.

Second, that he is liable to suit in a court other than that by which he was appointed, even in a state court, for a disregard of official duty which causes injury to the party suing.McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 U. S. 327, 35 L. ed. 796, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 11;Texas & P. R. Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 36 L. ed. 829, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 905.

Third, that a city, when authorized by the legislature, may regulate the speed of railroad trains within the city limits.Richmond, F. & P. R. Co. v. Richmond, 96 U. S. 521, 24 L. Ed. 734;Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Illinois ex rel Jett, 177 U. S. 514, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722, 44 L. ed.——.Such act is, even as to interstate trains, one only indirectly directly affecting interstate commerce, and is within the power of the state until at least Congress shall take action in the matter.

And, fourth, the sections quoted of the ordinance are not in conflict with those provisions of the 1st section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which restrain a state from denying the equal protection of the laws.This last proposition seems to be the only matter requiring anything more than a declaration of the law and a citation of decided cases.

The contention here is that the exception of the Interstate Transit Railway Company from the provision in reference to the speed of its trains creates a classification which is arbitrary and without any reasonable basis, and therefore operates to deny the equal protection of the laws.Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. ed. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255.If there were nothing in the record beyond the mere words of the ordinance we are of opinion tht that contention could not be sustained, because it is obvious on a moment's reflection that the tracks...