PittsburgNew York, N.H.&H.R. Co. v. Rogers, No. 20,930.
| Docket Nº | No. 20,930. |
| Citation | 168 Ind. 483, 81 N.E. 212 |
| Case Date | May 15, 1907 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
168 Ind. 483
81 N.E. 212
PITTSBURG, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO.
v.
ROGERS.
No. 20,930.1
Supreme Court of Indiana.
May 15, 1907.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wabash County; A. H. Plummer, Judge.
Action by Alvira Rogers, administratrix, against the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred to Appellate Court.
G. E. Ross, for appellant. Williams & Clawson, Todd & Rouch, and H. N. Hipskind, for appellee.
MONKS, J.
This was an action to recover damages for the death of appellee's decedent, caused by being struck by a passing train while he was in appellant's service. Judgment was rendered for $2,945 in favor of appellee.
It is claimed by appellant that said action is based upon the fourth division of section 7083, Burns' Ann. St. 1901, being section 1 of the employers' liability act of 1893, and that said act is in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In Tullis v. Lake Erie., etc., Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 348, 20 Sup. Ct. 136, 44 L. Ed. 192, the Supreme Court of the United States held that as applied to railroads said employers' liability act as construed by this court in Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Montgomery, 152 Ind. 1, 49 N. E. 582, 69 L. R. A. 875, 71 Am. St. Rep. 301, was not in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the
[81 N.E. 213]
Constitution of the United States. It was held by this court in Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Montgomery, 152 Ind. 1, 49 N. E. 852, 69 L. R. A. 875, 71 Am. St. Rep. 301,Indianapolis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Houlihan, 157 Ind. 494, 60 N. E. 943, 54 L. R. A. 787, Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Lightheiser, No. 20,582 (May term, 1906) 78 N. E. 1033,Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Collins (Ind.) 80 N. E. 415, 420, and Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ross (Ind.) 80 N. E. 845, 846, that, as applied to railroads, said employers' liability act was not in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States or of any provision of the Constitution of this state. It will be observed that this appellant was the appellant in four of said cases. See, also, Bedford Quarries Co. v. Bough (this term) 80 N. E. 529. In Pittsburgh, etc., v. Ross, supra, this court said: “The validity of this act so far as it applies to railroads was upheld in the case of Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Montgomery, 152 Ind. 1, 49 N. E. 582, 69 L. R. A. 875, 71 Am. St. Rep. 301, and that holding has been twice reaffirmed since this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, 21,419
...of, and injury from, the operating of trains. We are asked by the Appellate Court to overrule Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers (1907), 168 Ind. 483, 81 N.E. 212, upon the ground that when a constitutional question is presented in that court it has but one duty to perform, and that is to t......
-
Richey v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co., No. 21,419.
...the hazards of, and injury from, the operation of trains. We are asked by the Appellate Court to overrule Pittsburg, etc., Co. v. Rogers, 168 Ind. 483, 81 N. E. 212, upon the ground that, when a constitutional question is presented in that court, it has but one duty to perform, and that is ......
-
Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Peck, No. 21,407.
...this cause to the Appellate Court, on the ground that it had been decided by the Supreme Court, in Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers, 168 Ind. 483, 81 N. E. 212, that the constitutionality of section 8017, Burns' Ann. St. 1908, supra, had been settled, and that the jurisdiction over the ap......
-
Chicago, Indianapolis Louisville Railway Company v. Haynes Hackett, No. 889
...St. L. R. Co. v. Foland, 174 Ind. 411, 91 N. E. 594, 92 N. E. 165. Thus the Indiana court, in Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Rogers, 168 Ind. 483, 81 N. E. 212, said: 'It was held by this court in Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Montgomery (1898) 152 Ind. 1, 69 L.R.A. 875, 71 Am.......
-
Richey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, 21,419
...of, and injury from, the operating of trains. We are asked by the Appellate Court to overrule Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers (1907), 168 Ind. 483, 81 N.E. 212, upon the ground that when a constitutional question is presented in that court it has but one duty to perform, and that is to t......
-
Richey v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co., No. 21,419.
...the hazards of, and injury from, the operation of trains. We are asked by the Appellate Court to overrule Pittsburg, etc., Co. v. Rogers, 168 Ind. 483, 81 N. E. 212, upon the ground that, when a constitutional question is presented in that court, it has but one duty to perform, and that is ......
-
Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Peck, No. 21,407.
...this cause to the Appellate Court, on the ground that it had been decided by the Supreme Court, in Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers, 168 Ind. 483, 81 N. E. 212, that the constitutionality of section 8017, Burns' Ann. St. 1908, supra, had been settled, and that the jurisdiction over the ap......
-
Chicago, Indianapolis Louisville Railway Company v. Haynes Hackett, No. 889
...St. L. R. Co. v. Foland, 174 Ind. 411, 91 N. E. 594, 92 N. E. 165. Thus the Indiana court, in Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Rogers, 168 Ind. 483, 81 N. E. 212, said: 'It was held by this court in Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Montgomery (1898) 152 Ind. 1, 69 L.R.A. 875, 71 Am.......