Southern Railway Company v. Gadd, No. 645

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWhite
Citation58 L.Ed. 1099,233 U.S. 572,34 S.Ct. 696
Decision Date11 May 1914
Docket NumberNo. 645
PartiesSOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. W. O. GADD

233 U.S. 572
34 S.Ct. 696
58 L.Ed. 1099
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

W. O. GADD.

No. 645.
Argued April 15, 1914.
Decided May 11, 1914.

Messrs. Caruthers Ewing and L. E. Jeffries for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 572-575 intentionally omitted]

Page 575

Mr. John L. Stout for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant in error on this record sued the railway company, the plaintiff in error, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered through its negligence. The cause of action was expressly based

Page 576

upon the employers' liability act, it being averred that at the time of the injury the plaintiff, as an employee of the defendant, was assisting in the actual movement of interstate commerce transportation in which the defendant company was then engaged. The case is here on error prosecuted by the railway company to a judgment of the court below affirming a judgment of the trial court upon a verdict. 207 Fed. 277.

In Chicago Junction R. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 56 L. ed. 173, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 79, it was held that as the pleadings in that case based the right to recover upon an act of Congress, the safety appliance law, there was power in this court to review the judgment of a circuit court of appeals,—an authority which carried with it the duty to consider and pass upon all questions for decision in the case, even although they might not concern the interpretation of the act of Congress upon which the suit was based. But while thus ruling, it was nevertheless declared that, as questions of common-law negligence not involving the interpretation of the statute fell within the classes of questions which, under the distribution of judicial power made by the act of 1891 [26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 488] (re-expressed in the Judicial Code) were determinable by the circuit court of appeals in last resort, where such questions were brought here from a circuit court of appeals because they arose in a suit under the statute, and which for that reason alone could come here, whilst considering we would not reverse as to such questions unless it clearly appeared that error had been committed. Besides establishing this rule, it was further said that, in disposing of such questions, we would not feel it our duty to re-state the case and re-expound the principles applicable to its decision below, but would, as a general rule, leave those subjects where the circuit court of appeals had left them, and

The employers' liability act of April 22, 1908, 35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1322, as amended April 5, 1910, 36 Stat. at L. 291, chap. 143, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1324.

Page 577

would hence content ourselves with merely expressing our ultimate conviction of the case as formed after an adequate examination of the record. The principles announced in the King Case were subsequently expressly reiterated and applied in Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Moore, 228 U. S. 433, 57 L. ed. 907, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580, and Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 57 L. ed. 1204, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 840, 3 N. C. C. A. 826. And in both of these latter cases it was recognized that the ruling in the King Case was equally applicable to cases brought here from the circuit court of appeals on the ground that the relief sought was based on the employers' liability act where the cause of action arose since the adoption of the Judicial Code.

Coming to the case made by this record, although, as we have said, it is manifest that the cause of action was based upon the employers' liability act, we are of the opinion that it presents for decision no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 d1 Março d1 1925
    ...and there employed in interstate commerce. North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248, 58 L.Ed. 591; Southern R. R. Co. v. Gadd, 233 U.S. 572, 58 L.Ed. 1099; Norfolk Southern R. R. Co. v. Ferebee, 238 U.S. 269, 59 L.Ed. 1303; New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S......
  • United States v. Barnett, No. 20240.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 9 d2 Abril d2 1963
    ...tried, or punished for any offense not capital\' unless. "No reason has been suggested to us for not giving to the 233 U.S. 612, 34 S.Ct. 696, 58 L.Ed. 1115 statute its natural scope. The English courts seem to think it wise, even when there is much seeming reason for the exercise of a summ......
  • Ferguson v. Cormack Lines, MOORE-M
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 25 d1 Fevereiro d1 1957
    ...Division v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80, 34 S.Ct. 566, 58 L.Ed. 860; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Southern R. Co. v. Gadd, 233 U.S. 572, 34 S.Ct. 696, 58 L.Ed. 1099; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. 1914 Term. Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Wright, 235 U.S. 376, 35 S.Ct. 130......
  • Donahue v. Louisville, H. & St. L. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 18 d2 Março d2 1919
    ...Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, 34 S.Ct. 635, 58 L.Ed. 1062, L.R.A. 1915C, 1, Ann.Cas. 1915B, 475; Southern Ry. Co. v. Gadd, 233 U.S. 572, 34 S.Ct. 696, 58 L.Ed. 1099; Glenn v. C., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 157 Ky. 453, 163 S.W. 461; Enos' Adm'x v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 d1 Março d1 1925
    ...and there employed in interstate commerce. North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248, 58 L.Ed. 591; Southern R. R. Co. v. Gadd, 233 U.S. 572, 58 L.Ed. 1099; Norfolk Southern R. R. Co. v. Ferebee, 238 U.S. 269, 59 L.Ed. 1303; New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238......
  • United States v. Barnett, No. 20240.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 9 d2 Abril d2 1963
    ...tried, or punished for any offense not capital\' unless. "No reason has been suggested to us for not giving to the 233 U.S. 612, 34 S.Ct. 696, 58 L.Ed. 1115 statute its natural scope. The English courts seem to think it wise, even when there is much seeming reason for the exercise of a......
  • Ferguson v. Cormack Lines, MOORE-M
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 25 d1 Fevereiro d1 1957
    ...Division v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80, 34 S.Ct. 566, 58 L.Ed. 860; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Southern R. Co. v. Gadd, 233 U.S. 572, 34 S.Ct. 696, 58 L.Ed. 1099; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. 1914 Term. Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Wright, 235 U.S. 376, 35 S.Ct.......
  • Donahue v. Louisville, H. & St. L. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 18 d2 Março d2 1919
    ...Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, 34 S.Ct. 635, 58 L.Ed. 1062, L.R.A. 1915C, 1, Ann.Cas. 1915B, 475; Southern Ry. Co. v. Gadd, 233 U.S. 572, 34 S.Ct. 696, 58 L.Ed. 1099; Glenn v. C., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 157 Ky. 453, 163 S.W. 461; Enos' Adm'x v. Kentucky Distilleries & Wa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT