William Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee St Paul Railway Company
| Citation | 243 U.S. 43,61 L.Ed. 583,37 S.Ct. 268 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 636,636 |
| Parties | WILLIAM RAYMOND, Plff. in Err., v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. John T. Casey and Thomas J. Walsh for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Heman H. Field and George W. Korte for defendant in error.
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 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 cause of action was alleged under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moser v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
... ... UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant No. 7150 Supreme Court ... not engaged in interstate commerce. ( Raymond v. Chicago, ... Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co ... ...
-
Kinzell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...171 P. 1136 31 Idaho 365 WILLIAM KINZELL, Respondent, v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ... PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme ... 619, 37 S.Ct. 239, 61 L.Ed. 531; Raymond v. Chicago, M. & ... St. P. Ry. Co., 243 U.S ... ...
-
Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co.
...74, 52 Sup. 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.......
-
Armburg v. Boston & M.R.R.
...176;Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad v. Slavin, 236 U. S. 454, 35 S. Ct. 306, 59 L. Ed. 671;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 ......