Yazoo Co v. Mullins
Decision Date | 21 April 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 273,273 |
Citation | 63 L.Ed. 754,39 S.Ct. 368,249 U.S. 531 |
Parties | YAZOO & M. V. R. CO. et al. v. MULLINS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles N. Burch, of Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Marion W. Reily, of Meridian, Miss., for defendant in error.
Mullins, a flagman on the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad, was injured while engaged in switching an interstate train. He died within a few hours; and his administratrix brought suit in a state court of Mississippi under the federal Employers' Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 [Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665]). At the trial the railroad requested a directed verdict on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on its part. This request was refused; the case was submitted to the jury under instructions, some of which were objected to; and the verdict was for the plaintiff. Upon appeal from the judgment entered thereon the Supreme Court of Mississippi refused to consider the question of sufficiency of the evidence of negligence, and affirmed the judgment on the ground that the so-called 'Prima Facie Act' of Mississippi (section 1985 of the Code of 1906, chapter 215, Laws 1912, p. 290), as to which the trial court had given no instruction, applied and relieved the plaintiff of the burden of establishing negligence. 115 Miss. 343, 76 South. 147. The case comes here by writ of error under section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).
Since the decision below, this court has decided that the Mississippi 'Prima Facie Act' cannot be applied to suits under the federal Employers' Liability Act, New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co. v. Harris, 247 U. S. 367, 38 Sup. Ct. 535, 62 L. Ed. 1167; and the Supreme Court of Mississippi now recognizes this rule, New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co. v. Hanna (Miss.) 78 South. 953. The administratrix contends that, as the trial court did not give any instruction concerning the 'Prima Facie Act,' the error of the Supreme Court in resting its decision on that statute should not prevent an affirmance of the judgment below, because the railroad was not prejudiced by the error.
It is true generally in cases coming from lower federal courts that the rendering of an erroneous decision on a particular question, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Courtney, 186 U. S. 342, 351, 22 Sup. Ct. 833, 46 L. Ed. 1193; West v. Camden, 135 U. S. 507, 521, 10 Sup. Ct. 838, 34 L. Ed. 254; or the assignment by the lower court of an erroneous reason for a right decision, Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore, 228 U. S. 433, 435, 33 Sup. Ct. 580, 57 L. Ed. 907; United States v. One Distillery 174 U. S. 149, 151, 19 Sup. Ct. 624, 43 L. Ed. 929, will not entitle the complaining party to reversal, if it is clear that his rights were not prejudiced thereby. And this is likewise true of cases coming from state courts. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Wright, 239 U. S. 548, 551, 36 Sup. Ct. 185, 60 L. Ed. 431; New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad Co. v. Peninsular Exchange, 240 U. S. 34, 41, 42, 36 Sup. Ct. 230, 60 L. Ed. 511, L. R. A. 1917A, 193. See Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall 590, 22 L. Ed. 429. Whether the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milling Co v. Bondurant
...366, 63 L. Ed. 748; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Scarlet, 249 U. S. 528, 39 Sup. Ct. 369, 63 L. Ed. 752; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Mullins, 249 U. S. 531, 39 Sup. Ct. 368, 63 L. Ed. 754; Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U. S. 411, 40 Sup. Ct. 371, 64 L. Ed. 638, 10 A. L. R. 716; Royster Guano Co......
-
Keller v. Brooklyn Bus Corporation
...417, 72 L.Ed. 761; United States v. River Rouge Imp. Co., 269 U.S. 411, 421, 46 S.Ct. 144, 70 L.Ed. 339; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Mullins, 249 U.S. 531, 533, 39 S.Ct. 368, 63 L.Ed. 754; Lynch v. Oregon Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 108 F.2d 283, 286; Fort Dodge Hotel Co. v. Bartelt, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 2......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnston
... ... injury made a prima facie case of want of reasonable skill ... and care ... To the ... same effect is Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Mullins, 249 ... U.S. 531, 39 S.Ct. 368, 63 L.Ed. 754 ... Under ... these decisions the matter of burden of proof is regarded as ... of the ... 140; ... Id., 228 U.S. 559, 33 S.Ct. 581, 57 L.Ed. 966; Whitehead ... v. Wis. Cent. Ry. Co., 103 Minn. 13, 114 N.W. 254, 467; ... Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Wallace, 91 Miss. 492, 45 ... So. 857; St. L. S.W. Ry. Co. v. Waits (Tex. Civ ... App.) 164 S.W. 870 ... In the ... ...
-
Rorick v. Chancey
... ... Compare Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U.S. 197, 35 ... S.Ct. 57, 59 L.Ed. 193; Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R ... R. Co. v. Mullins, 249 U.S. 531, 39 S.Ct. 368, 63 ... L.Ed. 754; Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24, 44 ... S.Ct ... ...