St Louis, Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. Hesterly, No. 297
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 33 S.Ct. 703,57 L.Ed. 1031,228 U.S. 702 |
| Docket Number | No. 297 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1913 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN, & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff, in Err., v. E. L. HESTERLY, Administrator of the Estate of W. B. Hesterly, Deceased |
v.
E. L. HESTERLY, Administrator of the Estate of W. B. Hesterly, Deceased.
Page 703
Messrs. W. E. Hemingway, Martin L. Clardy, and Thomas B. Pryor for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Joseph M. Hill, James Brizzolara, and Henry L. Fitzhugh for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an action for personal injuries resulting in the death of the plaintiff's intestate. There are two counts, the first for the pecuniary loss to the next of kin, laid at $5,000, the other for the injury and pain suffered by the intestate, laid at $25,000. The death was caused by a defect in a car on which the intestate was a brakeman, the car being part of a train running from Van Buren, Arkansas, to Coffeyville, Kansas. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,000 on the first count, and for $10,000 on the second. The supreme court of the state sustained the judgment on condition of a remittitur of $5,000; this was entered and judgment was rendered for $7,000. At the trial the defendant asked for a ruling that the plaintiff could not recover damages for pain under the second count, which was denied, subject to exception. The supreme court treated the request as intended to raise the question whether the employers' liability act of Congress of April 22, 1908, chap. 149, 35 Stat. at L. 65, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1322, displaced the state law, as undoubtedly it was; stated that the suit was
Page 704
not based upon that act, and held that the act of Congress was only supplementary, and that the judgment could be upheld under the state law. 98 Ark. 240, 135 S. W. 874.
The plaintiff contends that the claim of right under the law of the United States, and against that under the law of the state, was not presented with clearness enough to save it. But as the supreme court held the question sufficiently raised and decided it, that objection is not open here. San Jose Land & Water Co. v. San Jose Ranch Co. 189 U. S. 177, 180, 47 L. ed. 765, 768, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 487; Eau Claire Nat. Bank v. Jackman, 204 U. S. 522, 533, 51 L. ed. 596, 604, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 394.
The same answer may be given to the suggestion that the defendant is estopped having pleaded contributory negligence, and thus having relied upon the state law. Moreover, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renn v. Seabd. Air Line Ry, (No. 259.)
...U. S. 570, 33 Sup. Ct. 135, 57 L. Ed. 355, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 134; St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 703, 33 Sup. Ct. 703, 57 L. Ed. 1031. An examination of the Wulf Case, 227 U. S. 570, 33 Sup. Ct. 135, 57 L. Ed. 355, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 134, will show that it is not decisive of ......
-
Scheiding v. General Motors Corp., Nos. A076324
...a right to sue for wrongful death where such a claim was not recognized by common law. (St. Louis, I. Mtn. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hesterly (1913) 228 U.S. 702, 33 S.Ct. 703, 57 L.Ed. 1031.) Negligence of the employee was not a bar to recovery, but only reduced the amount of damages proportionately......
-
Hogarty v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.
...it was engaged in interstate commerce at the time the plaintiff was injured. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Company v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 702, 33 Sup. Ct. 703, 57 L. Ed. 1031; North Carolina Ry. Company v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248, 34 Sup. Ct. 305, 58 L. Ed. 591, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 15......
-
Sullivan v. St. L.-S.F. Railway Co., No. 27164.
...itself of any applicable defense under said act, exactly the same after the amendment as before St. Louis, I.M. & S. Railroad v. Hesterly, 228 U.S. 702; North Carolina Railroad v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248; Toledo Railroad Co. v. Slavin, 236 U.S. 454; Miller v. Schaff, 228 S.W. 490. (c) Defenda......
-
Renn v. Seabd. Air Line Ry, (No. 259.)
...U. S. 570, 33 Sup. Ct. 135, 57 L. Ed. 355, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 134; St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 703, 33 Sup. Ct. 703, 57 L. Ed. 1031. An examination of the Wulf Case, 227 U. S. 570, 33 Sup. Ct. 135, 57 L. Ed. 355, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 134, will show that it is not decisive of ......
-
Scheiding v. General Motors Corp., Nos. A076324
...a right to sue for wrongful death where such a claim was not recognized by common law. (St. Louis, I. Mtn. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hesterly (1913) 228 U.S. 702, 33 S.Ct. 703, 57 L.Ed. 1031.) Negligence of the employee was not a bar to recovery, but only reduced the amount of damages proportionately......
-
Hogarty v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.
...it was engaged in interstate commerce at the time the plaintiff was injured. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Company v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 702, 33 Sup. Ct. 703, 57 L. Ed. 1031; North Carolina Ry. Company v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248, 34 Sup. Ct. 305, 58 L. Ed. 591, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 15......
-
Sullivan v. St. L.-S.F. Railway Co., No. 27164.
...itself of any applicable defense under said act, exactly the same after the amendment as before St. Louis, I.M. & S. Railroad v. Hesterly, 228 U.S. 702; North Carolina Railroad v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248; Toledo Railroad Co. v. Slavin, 236 U.S. 454; Miller v. Schaff, 228 S.W. 490. (c) Defenda......