Southern Railway Company v. Lloyd

Decision Date10 January 1916
Docket NumberNo. 296,296
Citation36 S.Ct. 210,60 L.Ed. 402,239 U.S. 496
PartiesSOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. W. L. LLOYD
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. John M. Wilson, L. E. Jeffries, and H. O'B. Cooper for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Aubrey L. Brooks for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

W. L. Lloyd, herein called the plaintiff, brought his action in the superior court of Guilford county, North Carolina, against the defendant, the Southern Railway Company, joined with its lessor, the North Carolina Railroad Company. The action was brought under the Federal employers' liability act of 1908, 35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, as amended April 5th, 1910, 36 Stat. at L. 291, chap. 143, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8662.

The North Carolina Railroad Company is a corporation of the state of North Carolina, owning a railroad line extending from Goldsboro, North Carolina, to Charlotte, in the same state. The Southern Railway Company is organized under the laws of the state of Virginia, and is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, transporting freight and passengers from the city of Washington, District of Columbia, through Greensboro, and over the tracks of the North Carolina Railroad Company through Spencer, Salisbury, and Charlotte.

The petition charges that the Southern Railway Company was, at the time of the injuries complained of, operating as lessee of the North Carolina Railroad Company the roads and side tracks at Spencer; that on January 12th, 1911, plaintiff was employed as an engineer by the defendant, Southern Railway Company, upon its freight trains running over said line of road from Spencer, North Carolina, to Monroe, Virginia, and was engaged in interstate traffic; that upon said date he was directed as engineer to take charge of a certain engine at Spencer, to ascertain whether the same was in serviceable condition, as it had just come from the repair shops; that while he was operating the engine on one of the side tracks of the North Carolina Railroad Company's main line at Spencer, and was oiling and inspecting the same, in stooping over the engine to ascertain if the ash pan and other equipments were in proper condition, a lever about 2 feet long, located at the rear of the driving wheel and the lower side of the engine, used for the purpose of operating the damper to the ash pan, tripped and violently struck the plaintiff in the forehead, causing serious harm and injury; that the defective condition was known to the Southern Railway Company, and unknown to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff, at the time of the injury, was employed by the Southern Railway Company for the purpose of transporting interstate commerce running to and from Spencer, North Carolina, along the main line of the Southern Railway Company, part of which said line included the portion of said North Carolina Railroad Company's line leased by the Southern Railway Company from Greensboro, North Carolina, to Spencer, North Carolina; that the engine upon which the plaintiff was hurt was, and had been, exclusively used by the Southern Railway Company in the transportation of interstate commerce over the line of said road between Spencer and Monroe, Virginia, and that the plaintiff, at the time of his injury, was in charge of said engine. Negligence of the Southern Railway Company is charged in furnishing the plaintiff with an unsafe and dangerous engine, knowing the same to be such, and thereby rendering the plaintiff's employment hazardous and dangerous, and unnecessarily exposing him to peril.

The Southern Railway Company in due season filed its petition for removal of the case to the district court of the United States for the western district of North Carolina, because of its diversity of citizenship with the plaintiff, and alleging that the joinder of the North Carolina Railroad Company, the local defendant, was fraudulently made to avoid Federal jurisdiction; that the plaintiff was not engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident; that the engine upon which he was injured was not engaged in any kind of commerce at the time of the accident; and that these allegations in the petition were fraudulent and false, which the plaintiff knew, or could have ascertained by the exercise of the slightest diligence upon his part. The court refused to remove the case, to which refusal the Southern Railway Company excepted.

Upon issue joined, the case came on for trial at the February term, 1913, of the superior court of Guilford county. At the close of plaintiff's testimony, the court intimated that there was no cause of action against the North Carolina Railroad Company; upon this intimation a nonsuit was taken as to that company. Thereupon the Southern Railway Company filed a second petition for removal which the court, after argument, granted, and an order was made, removing the case to the district court of the United States for the western district of North Carolina. The plaintiff excepted to this order of removal, and to the nonsuit as to the North Carolina Railroad Company, and, upon appeal to the supreme court of North Carolina, that court held that the case should not have been removed, and remanded it to the superior court of Guilford county for trial. 162 N. C. 485, 78 S. E. 489.

The case coming on again for trial in the superior court, the Southern Railway Company renewed its objections to the jurisdiction by a plea, and set up that the case had been docketed in the district court of the United States for the western district of North Carolina, that no motion had been made to remand the same, that the order removing it had not been revoked, and that the case was then pending for trial in the district court as aforesaid. The North Carolina...

To continue reading

Request your trial
95 cases
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Adm'x
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1930
    ... ... Jolly, deceased, against ... the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company". Judgment adverse ... to defendant, and it appeals. Affirmed ...    \xC2" ... R. Co. v. Darr ... (C.C.A.) 204 F. 751, 47 L.R.A. (N. S.) 4; Southern ... R. Co. v. Puckett, 244 U.S. 571, 37 S.Ct. 703, 61 L.Ed ... 1321, ... 156, 33 S.Ct. 651, 57 L.Ed. 1129; ... Southern Ry. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496, 36 S.Ct ... 210, 60 L.Ed. 402; North Carolina R. Co. v ... & St. L. R. Co. v ... Glinn (C.C.A.) 219 F. 148; Slatinka v. Railway ... Administration, 194 Iowa 159, 188 N.W. 20, 24 A.L.R ... 608. The ... ...
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1929
    ...assumption of risk, such defense is not available to it. Adams v. Railroad (Mo.), 229 S.W. 795; Halt v. Railroad 279 S.W. 152; Ry. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496; Railway v. Mims, 242 U.S. 532. (b) Under the facts of this record the deceased did not assume the risk arising from the non-customar......
  • L. & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Admrx.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • January 14, 1930
    ...to the interstate cars. St. Louis, S.F. & T.R. Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 33 S. Ct. 651, 57 L. Ed. 1129; Southern Ry. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496, 36 S. Ct. 210, 60 L. Ed. 402; North Carolina R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248, 34 S. Ct. 305, 58 L. Ed. 591, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 159; Van Buskirk v......
  • Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 27, 1935
    ... ... Actions of contract or tort by the Lawrence Trust Company ... against the Chase Securities Corporation, by the Western ... 61; Kimball v. Evans, 93 U.S. 320, 23 ... L.Ed. 920; Southern R. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496, ... 36 S.Ct. 210, 60 L.Ed. 402; Chesapeake ... operate.’ Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway v ... Missouri Railroad & Warehouse Commissioners, 183 U.S ... 53, 59, ... ...
  • 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