Petterson v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
| Decision Date | 10 October 1924 |
| Parties | PETTERSON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Silas B. Axtell, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Frederick J. Moses, of New York City, for defendant.
L. HAND, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
This is indeed a tangled question under the authorities, resulting from the ambiguity of the statute. The word, "jurisdiction," in the last sentence of section twenty means only venue, Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 383-385, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 748, but the Supreme Court has never said whether the state court had jurisdiction of such actions. Judge Cushman, in Wenzler v. Robin Line S. S. Co. (D. C.) 277 F. 812, 817-819, held in a case of injuries that the use of the word, "court," instead of "courts" precluded the idea that state courts were comprehended. He was followed by Judge Garvin in Malia v. So. Pac. Co. (D. C.) 293 F. 902, Judge Neterer in Lorang v. Alaska S. S. Co. (D. C.) 298 F. 547, and Judge Partridge in Petterson v. Hobbs, Wall & Co. (D. C.) 300 F. 811, 1924 A. M. C. 327. Barrington v. Pacific S. S. Co. (D. C.) 282 F. 900, is overruled by Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, supra; Leon v. U. S. Shipping Board (D. C.) 286 F. 681, is not in point.
On the other hand Judge A. N. Hand remanded such causes in three cases, Beer v. Clyde S. S. Co. (D. C.) 300 F. 561, Herrera v. Pan-American Petroleum & Transport Co. (D. C.) 300 F. 563, and Martin v. U. S. Shipping Board (D. C.) 1 F.(2d) 603. The first of these was for death and the other two for injuries. The New York Court of Appeals sustains the jurisdiction of the state courts, Patrone v. Howlett, 237 N. Y. 394, 143 N. E. 232, and so have two of the Appellate Divisions of that state, Tammis v. Panama R. Co., 202 App. Div. 226, 195 N. Y. S. 587, and Lynott v. Great Lakes Transit Corp., 202 App. Div. 613, 195 N. Y. S. 13, affirmed 234 N. Y. 626, 138 N. E. 473.
It seems to me that the latter cases are right. The clause, "the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides," fits a state court properly enough because the word, "district," will answer the local jurisdiction of such a court as well as a federal district. The use of the singular is not significant, since the phrase "the court" may have been used distributively, i. e., "any court." Besides, the earlier express provisions leave no doubt. The decisions which refuse to remand misconceive the meaning of the clause, "all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply." This does not mean that these statutes shall apply only so far as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clifton Park Manor, Section One v. Mason
...held to incorporate the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act including those against removal. Petterson v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 41 F.2d 219. 8 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b). 9 Booth v. Montgomery Ward & Co., D.C. Neb., 44 F.Supp. 451, 456. For similar holdings,......
-
Brantley v. Augusta Ice & Coal Co.
...Act by reference incorporates the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act which I have mentioned. Petterson v. Standard Oil Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., Judge L. Hand, 41 F.2d 219. The amendment of the Removal Statute to prevent removal of suits under what was known originally as the Carma......
-
James River Apartments v. Federal Housing Admin.
...of the procedures applicable to the Employers' Liability Act have been incorporated into the Jones Act. (Petterson v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1924, 41 F.2d 219; Greene v. United Fruit Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1949, 85 F.Supp. 81). The question before this court is whether in th......
-
Fiolat v. Minnesota-Atlantic Transit Co.
...300 Fed. 563, injuries; Martin v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., D.C., 1 F.2d 603, injuries; Petterson v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, D.C., 41 F.2d 219, death; Cameron v. American Mail Line, D.C., February 1, 1934, 5 F.Supp. 939. The New York Court of Appeals sustai......