State v. District Court of Steele County, 27615.
| Decision Date | 16 August 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 27615.,27615. |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BORIGHT v. DISTRICT COURT OF STEELE COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Steele County; Fred Senn, Judge.
Original mandamus proceeding in the Supreme Court by the State, on the relation of H. N. Boright, against the District Court of Steele County and another. On motion to discharge the writ. Writ discharged.
Davis & Michel, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
O'Brien, Horn & Stringer, of St. Paul, and F. A. Alexander, of Owatonna, for respondents and Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
F. W. Root, C. O. Newcomb, and A. C. Erdall, all of Minneapolis (Sawyer, Lord & Munck, of Owatonna, of counsel), for Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., amici curiæ.
Samuel H. Cady, of Chicago, Ill. (for Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.), Walter H. Jacobs, of Chicago, Ill. (for Chicago G. W. R. Co.), J. C. James, of Chicago, Ill., and Denegre, McDermott, Stearns, Stone & Mackey, of St. Paul (for Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.), Edward C. Craig, of Chicago, Ill., Chas. A. Helsell, of Ft. Dodge, Iowa, and Edwin C. Brown, of Minneapolis (for Illinois Cent. R. Co.), and Harold S. Nelson, of Owatonna, amici curiæ.
The relator, H. N. Boright, brought an action in the district court of Steele county under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59) to recover for personal injuries sustained in Kansas while employed by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company in interstate commerce.
The railroad company moved for an order dismissing the action upon the ground that the trial of it in Steele county would constitute an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in contravention of the commerce clause of the Constitution and in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment; and it asserted as a ground for the granting of its motion that the railroad company was a resident and citizen of Illinois and the plaintiff a resident and citizen of Kansas, and because of convenience the court had the discretion to dismiss the action brought in Minnesota. The case was submitted on affidavits, and on hearing the motion was granted and a formal judgment of dismissal was entered.
The relator then procured from this court an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the district court to proceed with the trial of the action or show cause why it did not do so. The respondent moved to discharge the writ. One ground of the motion is that mandamus is not the proper remedy.
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial