William Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee St Paul Railway Company, No. 636
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | White |
| Citation | 243 U.S. 43,61 L.Ed. 583,37 S.Ct. 268 |
| Parties | WILLIAM RAYMOND, Plff. in Err., v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Docket Number | No. 636 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1917 |
v.
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY.
Messrs. John T. Casey and Thomas J. Walsh for plaintiff in error.
Page 44
Messrs. Heman H. Field and George W. Korte for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
Raymond, the plaintiff in error, sued the railway company, a foreign corporation doing business in Washington, to recover damages resulting from injuries sustained by him while in its employ. The petition alleged that the defendant operated an interstate commerce railroad between Chicago and Seattle, and that, for the purpose of shortening its main line and making more efficient and expeditious its freight and passenger service, was engaged in cutting a tunnel through the mountain between Horrick's Spur and Rockdale, in Washington. It was averred that plaintiff was employed by the defendant in the tunnel as a laborer, and that, while he was at work, his pick struck a charge of dynamite which, through the defendant's negligence, had not been removed, and that from the explosion which followed he had sustained serious injuries.
The defendant's answer contained a general denial and alleged that at the time and place of the accident the railroad and Raymond were not engaged in interstate commerce, since the tunnel was only partially bored, and hence not in use as an instrumentality of interstate commerce. It was further alleged that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the cause because of the provisions of the Washington Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1911, chap. 74), with whose requirements the defendant had fully complied. The reply of the plaintiff admitted the facts alleged in the answer, but denied that they constituted defenses to the action.
The trial court entered a judgment for the defendant on the pleadings, and this writ of error is prosecuted to a
Page 45
judgment of the court below, affirming such action. 147 C. C. A. 245, 233 Fed. 239.
Considering the suit as based upon the Federal Employers' Liability Act, it is certain, under recent decisions of this court, whatever doubt may have existed in the minds of some at the time the judgment below was rendered, that, under the facts as alleged, Raymond and the railway company were not engaged in interstate commerce at the time the injuries were suffered, and consequently no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Long & Turner Const. Co., No. 20736.
...217 Fed. 234; New York Central Railroad Co. v. Sarah White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S. Ct. 247; Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 243 U.S. 43, 37 S. Ct. 268; Damon v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 446; Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co., 39 F. Supp. 275; Dollar v. Caddo Riv......
-
Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co., No. 18850.
...Ct. 59, 61; Gilvary v. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co., 292 U.S. 57, 54 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573, 574; Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 243 U.S. 43, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268, l.c. 269; Kulczyk v. Rockport S.S. Co. (Mich.), 8 Fed. Supp. 336, l.c. 337; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 Sup......
-
Armburg v. Boston & M.R.R.
...& Western Railroad v. Slavin, 236 U. S. 454, 35 S. Ct. 306, 59 L. Ed. 671;[276 Mass. 423]Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, 243 U. S. 43, 45, 37 S. Ct. 268, 61 L. Ed. 583. There are numerous cases where decisions of state courts have been reversed because recovery had been al......
-
State ex rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer
...243 U.S. at 234-35, 37 S.Ct. at 263-64. Accordingly, that Court affirmed the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court, id. at 246, 37 S.Ct. at 268, including the part of its opinion that concluded that Guarantee Clause claims are not justiciable in state [324 Or. 623] Similarly, in Borden v......
-
Adams v. Long & Turner Const. Co., No. 20736.
...217 Fed. 234; New York Central Railroad Co. v. Sarah White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S. Ct. 247; Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 243 U.S. 43, 37 S. Ct. 268; Damon v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 446; Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co., 39 F. Supp. 275; Dollar v. Caddo Riv......
-
Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co., No. 18850.
...Ct. 59, 61; Gilvary v. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co., 292 U.S. 57, 54 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573, 574; Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 243 U.S. 43, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268, l.c. 269; Kulczyk v. Rockport S.S. Co. (Mich.), 8 Fed. Supp. 336, l.c. 337; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 Sup......
-
Armburg v. Boston & M.R.R.
...& Western Railroad v. Slavin, 236 U. S. 454, 35 S. Ct. 306, 59 L. Ed. 671;[276 Mass. 423]Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, 243 U. S. 43, 45, 37 S. Ct. 268, 61 L. Ed. 583. There are numerous cases where decisions of state courts have been reversed because recovery had been al......
-
State ex rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer
...243 U.S. at 234-35, 37 S.Ct. at 263-64. Accordingly, that Court affirmed the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court, id. at 246, 37 S.Ct. at 268, including the part of its opinion that concluded that Guarantee Clause claims are not justiciable in state [324 Or. 623] Similarly, in Borden v......