St Louis, Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. Hesterly, No. 297

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHolmes
Citation33 S.Ct. 703,57 L.Ed. 1031,228 U.S. 702
Docket NumberNo. 297
Decision Date26 May 1913
PartiesST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN, & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff, in Err., v. E. L. HESTERLY, Administrator of the Estate of W. B. Hesterly, Deceased

228 U.S. 702
33 S.Ct. 703
57 L.Ed. 1031
ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN, & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff, in Err.,

v.

E. L. HESTERLY, Administrator of the Estate of W. B. Hesterly, Deceased.

No. 297.
Argued and submitted May 6, 1913.
Decided May 26, 1913.

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
55 practice notes
  • Renn v. Seabd. Air Line Ry, (No. 259.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • November 17, 1915
    ...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
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 3, 1998
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 9, 1916
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1928
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
55 cases
  • Renn v. Seabd. Air Line Ry, (No. 259.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • November 17, 1915
    ...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
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 3, 1998
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 9, 1916
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1928
    ...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......
  • 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