Norris v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1925 |
| Citation | 18 F.2d 584 |
| Parties | NORRIS v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Davis & Michel, of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
Brown & Guesmer, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Helsell & Helsell, of Ft. Dodge, Iowa, for defendant.
The questions presented by the motion of the defendant have already been settled. The federal Employers' Liability Act (Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665) permits the plaintiff to bring an action in any district where the carrier does business.
The defendant here asks that the court construe that authority as though the act provided that such action might be commenced in such a district, provided that it did not impose an unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce. In other words, it asks that the court inject something into the act which it does not contain. In the case of State ex rel. v. District Court, 156 Minn. 380, 194 N. W. 780, the court said:
In the case of Schendel v. McGee (C. C. A.) 300 F. 278, Judge Kenyon says:
"Congress has not given to the courts the right to exercise discretion as to whether the case shall be prosecuted, or such prosecutions refused, because the same may be a burden on commerce. It has given the right under the federal Employers' Liability Act, hereinbefore discussed, to an injured party, or in case of his death to the duly constituted representative, to maintain an action for damages in the courts of the district where the defendant is doing business at the time the suit is commenced. We are not concerned with the justice or the wisdom of such legislation. It being the law, it is a court's duty, where there is jurisdiction, to take and retain that jurisdiction and try the case. The Supreme Court of the United States in the Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 58, 32 S. Ct. 169, 178, 56 L. Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44, says: "The existence of the jurisdiction creates an implication of duty to exercise it, and that its exercise may be onerous does not militate against that implication."
The Illinois Central Railway Company, at the time of the commencement of this action, was doing business in this state....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erving v. Chicago & North Western Railway Company
... ... is a railroad corporation organized under the laws of ... Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan. Plaintiff, a nonresident of ... Minnesota, prosecuted this action to ... Am. Ry, Exp. Co. supra; Rosenblet v. Pere ... Marquette Ry. Co. 162 Minn. 55, 202 N.W. 56; Norris ... v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. 18 F.2d 584; Dennick v ... Central R. Co. 103 U.S. 11, 26 L.Ed ... ...
-
Sacco v. Baltimore & OR Co.
...with out-of-district cases. Trapp v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., D.C., 283 F. 655; Schendel v. McGee, 8 Cir., 300 F. 273; Norris v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., D.C., 18 F.2d 584; Beem v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., D.C., 55 F.2d 708; Southern R. Co. v. Cochran, 6 Cir., 56 F.2d 1019; Wood v. Delaware & H. ......
-
Tivoli Realty v. Interstate Circuit, 12226.
...1129, 146 A.L.R. 1104; Trapp v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., D.C., 283 F. 655; Schendel v. McGee, 8 Cir., 300 F. 273; Norris v. Illinois Central R. Co., D.C., 18 F.2d 584; Beem v. Illinois Central R. Co., D.C., 55 F.2d 708; Wood v. Delaware & Hudson R. Corp., 2 Cir., 63 F.2d 235; Chesapeake & O......
-
In re Jacob Levine & Sons Co.
... ... November 25th, requesting the referee to call a meeting of the creditors to consider a 25 per cent. composition. On the date of the first meeting of creditors certain witnesses were sworn and ... ...