PRICE & OTHERS
v.
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania's state court judgment that a mail clerk employed by the federal government and traveling on a railroad train to manage mail was not a passenger under Pennsylvania law, despite federal statutes requiring railroads to carry mail clerks without extra charge. The Court held that federal laws authorizing the employment and transportation of mail clerks do not convert such employees into passengers for purposes of state law liability, and that a person's status depends on the nature of their relationship with the railroad rather than on federal employment or the absence of additional compensation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as above stated, and continued:
The plaintiff argues here, and insisted throughout the progress of the case in the State courts, that by reason of certain laws of the United States as applied to the facts found in the verdict of the jury, the decedent was a passenger, and the Supreme Court erred in holding otherwise.
These laws are thus cited in the brief of plaintiff’s-counsel:
“Act March 3, 1865, § 8,13 Stat. 506, provides that ‘Forthepurpose of assorting and distributing letters and other matter in railway post offices, the Postmaster General may, from time to time, appoint clerks who shall be paid out of the appropriation for mail transportation.’
“ § 4000 Rev. Stat. requires that ‘ Every railway company carrying the mail shall carry on any train which may run over its road, and without extra charge therefor, all mailable matter directed to be carried thereon, with the person in charge-of the same.’ ”
We do not' think these provisions either aid or govern the construction of the proviso in the Pennsylvania statute.
The person thus to be carried with the mail matter, without extra charge, is no more a passenger because he is in charge of the mail, nor because no other compensation is made for his transportation, than if he had no such charge, nor does the fact that.he is in the employment of the United States, and that defendant is bound by contract with the government to carry him, affect the question. It would be just the same if the company had contracted with any other person who had 'charge of freight on the train to carry him without additional compensation. The statutes of the United States which authorize this employment and direct this service do not, therefore, make the person so engaged a passenger, or deprive, him of that character , in construing the Pennsylvania statúté,' Nbr does it give to persons sq employed any rigjit, as agaiqst the railroad company, which would not belong to any other' persón in a similar employment, by others than the United States.
We are, therefore, of opinion that no question of federal authority was involved in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the writ of error is accordingly
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ry. Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1945)…tate regulation involved a direct, physical interference with federal activities under the postal power or some direct, immediate burden on the performance of the postal functions. Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U. S. 51, 57; Price v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 U. S. 218, 222; Martin v. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. Co., 203 U. S. 284, 292-93. See Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 732; In re Rapier, 143 U. S. 110, 133. And in at least one instance this Court has sustained direct state interference with transmission of the…
-
Selover v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1912)
-
Bankers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Minneapolis, 192 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1904)…s of the United States are not suits arising under the Constitution or laws where they do not turn on a controversy between the parties in regard to the operation of the Constitution or laws, on the facts. In Price v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 113 U. S. 218, which was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the question arose whether a railway mail clerk was a passenger within a certain statute of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion, said: “The plaintiff argues h…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dobbins v. The Comm'rs of Erie Cnty., 16 Pet. 435 (U.S. 1842)