Philadelphia Ry Co v. Polk
| Decision Date | 16 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 298,298 |
| Parties | PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO. v. POLK |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. George Gowen Parry, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. Francis M. McAdams, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Certiorari to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania affirming an award made under the Workmen's Compensation Board of the state in favor of respondent who is the widow of John M. Polk, who died as the result of an accident, occurring in the course of his employment by the railway company.
The matter of her petition proceeded in due course from referee of the board to the board, from the latter to the court of common pleas, and thence to the Supreme Court of the state, she being adjudged by all of them entitled to an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the state (Pa. St. 1920, § 21916 et seq.).
The facts as found are that Polk on August 28, 1917, while employed by the railway company on a freight train, in its Port Richmond Yard, handled by engine No. 832 was caught between two cars, and as a result thereof sustained injuries from which he died.
At the time of the occurrence of the injury the company was a common carrier, by rail, engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce, and that at such time there was a draft of freight cars attached to the engine which was in charge of the crew of which Polk was a member. Some of these cars were bound from points within the state to other points within the state and the others were loaded with various commodities, some of which were bound from points outside of the state to points within the state, and others of which were bound from points within the state to points outside of the state, and there was at least one car of this draft which was passing through the state from a point in New York to a point in Illinois.
The board, upon the appeal of the company, adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee and affirmed his award. This action was affirmed by the court of common pleas and the latter's judgment by the Supreme Court. 266 Pa. 335, 109 Atl. 627.
The referee did not find definitely as a fact that Polk was engaged in intrastate commerce at the time of his injury, but assumed that the fact might be so; therefore, regarded it as so, because in his (the referee's) opinion the burden of proving the contrary; that is, that Polk 'was actually engaged in work incident to interstate commerce,' was upon the company and the company had 'not met the burden required of it' and further, that the company 'offered no testimony whatever to show what work John M. Polk was performing at the time he was injured. * * *'
The Supreme Court approved the findings and the deductions from them. It is manifest therefore that the case is within the rule of Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. Maria Domenica Di Donato, 256 U. S. 327, 41 Sup. Ct. 516, 65 L. Ed. ——, just decided. Here, as there, the employment concerned both kinds of commerce and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moser v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
... ... R. Co. v. Porter , 249 U.S. 168, 63 ... L.Ed. 536; New York Cent. R. Co. v. Winfield , 244 ... U.S. 147, 61 L.Ed. 1045; Philadelphia B. & W. R. Co. v ... Smith , 250 U.S. 101, 63 L.Ed. 869; Louisiana Ry. & ... Nav. Co. v. Williams , (5 Cir.) 272 F. 439.) ... The ... (2d) 271, 120 ... P.2d 880; No. Carolina R. Co. v. Zachary , 232 U.S ... 248, 58 L.Ed. 591; Philadelphia & Reading R. Co. v ... Polk , 256 U.S. 332, 65 L.Ed. 958; Philadelphia & ... Reading R. Co. v. DiDonato , 256 U.S. 327, 65 L.Ed. 955; ... U. S. v. Darby , 312 U.S. 100, 85 ... ...
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Adm'x
... ... demanded, and the test of the cases satisfied." ... In ... Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. v. Smith, 250 U.S. 101, 39 ... S.Ct. 396, 63 L.Ed. 869, an employee of an interstate ... railroad who was serving as cook in a ... exertion would be to destroy its unity and commit it to ... confusing controversies." Cf. Philadelphia & R. R ... Co. v. Polk, 256 U.S. 332, 41 S.Ct. 518, 65 L.Ed. 958 ... In Pennsylvania Co. v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50, 36 S.Ct ... 4, 60 L.Ed. 139, the trial court refused ... ...
-
Milling Co v. Bondurant
...Ed. 907; Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. Di Donato, 256 U. S. 327, 41 Sup. Ct. 516, 65 L. Ed. 955; Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. Polk, 256 U. S. 332, 41 Sup. Ct. 518, 65 L. Ed. 958. 5 See, e. g., Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 37 Sup. Ct. 280, 61 L. Ed. 710......
-
Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co, 13240.
...in interstate commerce." Scoggins v. Railway Co. (D. C.) 292 F. 162, 163. In the case of Philadelphia, etc., Railway Company v. Polk, 256 U. S. 332, 41 S. Ct. 518, 65 L. Ed. 958, the court said: "At the time of the occurrence of the injury the company was a common carrier, by rail, engaged ......