CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
SCHWYHART

U.S. | 1913-02-03
No. 132
227 U.S. 184 Supreme Court of the United States (1913) Caution
Also reported at: 57 L. Ed. 473 · 33 S. Ct. 250 · SCDB 1912-083 · 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2289
Cited by 130 cases

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.

Synopsis

In a personal injury action brought by a railway employee against the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company and its foreman Barrett for injuries sustained while performing coupled work between railroad cars, the Supreme Court affirmed the state court judgment against both defendants, rejecting the railway company's contention that the state court proceedings were void due to improper removal to federal court. The Court held that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action against both the company and the foreman under state law, that joinder of the individual defendants was not fraudulent merely because they were persons of modest means or because the plaintiff sought to enforce a legitimate joint liability, and that a declaration adequately stated negligence where it alleged the defendant knowingly ordered the plaintiff into a dangerous situation without warning while falsely assuring him of safety.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion, of the court.

This is an action -for personal injuries' brought by Schwyhart against the railway company and those of its .servants to whose immediate negligence the injuries were alleged to have been due. There was a verdict and judgment against the company and the defendant Barrett, but at the proper time a petition had been filed by the railway company for the removal of'the action to the Circuit Court of the United States, and it now contends that all subsequent proceedings in the state courts-were void. 145 Mo. App. 332.

The declaration alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the company as hostler under Barrett as foreman; that it was his duty under Barrett’s direction to uncouple the air brake and signal hose from between the ends of the cars on a specified train; that Barrett ordered him to do so, and that while he was betwéen the cars, owing to their proceeding in an unusual manner that is stated,.he was crushed; and further that Barrett negligently ordered him into the dangerous situation without giving him warning of the danger, and by his order and presence assured the plaintiff that the work could be proceeded with safely, when by the exercise of ordinary care on Barrett’s part the injury could have been avoided. After the petition for removal had been overruled the declaration was amended by inserting as to Barrett ‘although he well knew of plaintiff’s danger and the unusual way bjr which the said Pullman car was to be switched.’

The defendants other than the railway were residents of Missouri, and the petition for removal charged that they were, joined for the sole and fraudulent purpose of preventing a removal. The grounds stated for the charge of fraudulent joinder were that the declaration disclosed no cause of action against those defendants, that the company and they were not jointly liable, and that they were persons of little or no property, while the-eompany was fully able to pay. It will be sufficient to consider these grounds with reference to Barrett alone, the party that ultimately was held. '

The joint liability of the defendánts under the declaration as amended is a matter of state law, and upon that we shall not attempt to go behind the decision of the highest court of the State before which the question could come. Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller, 217 U. S. 209, 215, 216. That court might hold that the declaration averred the plaintiff to have been led by Barrett into a trap that was set and snapped by the company, the latter being also liable for Barrett’s share in the deed. Again, the motive of the plaintiff, taken by itself, does not affect the right to remove. If there is a joint liability he has an .absolute right to enforce it, whatever the reason that makes him wish, to assert the right. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413, 427. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Sheegog, 215 U. S. 308, 316. Hence the fact that the company is rich and Barrett poor does not affect the case.

The remaining justification for the charge of fraudulent, intent is that no cause of action was stated against Barrett. That again is a question of state law, and that the plaintiff had such a cause of action in' fact must be taken now to be. established. The suggestion that mere non-feasance is alleged is shown to be unfounded by the statement that we have made. It is true that the declaration was amended after the petition to remove had been denied, but the amendment if not unnecessary merely made the original cause of action more precise. On the question of removal we have not to consider more than whether there was a real intention to get a joint judgment and whether there was a colorable ground for if shown as the record stood when the removal was denied. We are hot to decide whether a flaw could be picked in the declaration on special demurrer. As the record stood Barrett was-alleged negligently to h¿ve ordered the plaintiff info a dangerous place and by his conduct to have assured the plaintiff of safety, when if Barrett had used ordinary' care the-plaintiff need not have been hurt. To add that Barrett knew the specific source of the danger is merely to make plainer what evidently was meant before.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (36 total)

  • Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1939)
    …us decisions. Particularly, I think it unwise to indicate this step in a.case in which decision and judgment do not require discussion of the question. c. 3, § 71, 28 U. S. C. c. 2, § 51, § 56 45 U. S. C. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Schwyhart, 227 U. S. 184, 194. Nichols v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. (CCA 6th, decided 1912), 195 F. 913; Stewart v. Nebraska Tire & Rubber Co. (CCA 8th, decided 1930), 39 F. 2d 309; Des Moines Elevator & Grain Co. v. Underwriters’ Grain Assn. (CCA 8th, decided 1933), 63 F.…
    1 / 2
  • Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co., Inc., 284 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1931)
    …n allegation that the joinder was fraudulent, and will not justify a removal from the state court. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Sheegog, 215 U. S. 308; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413; Chicago, R. I. & P. [*190] Ry. Co. v. Schwyhart, 227 U. S. 184. The facts disclosed in this record fall far short of proof of actual fraud such as was held sufficient to justify removal in Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315; Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U. S. 327; Lake County Commissioners v. Dudley, 173…
  • Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1921)
    …good faith against the coemployee — the result must be the same whether the [*99] local law makes for or against a joint liability. See Wecker v. National Enameling & Stamping Co., supra, p. 183; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Schwyhart, 227 U. S. 184, 194. In his motion to remand the plaintiff asserted that the removal was obtained for purposes of delay. But this had no jurisdictional bearing, no attempt was made to prove it and it is not relied on here. We think the.District Court rightfully…

Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (38 total)

View all 38 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw