MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
TABER, GUARDIAN OF SMALL ET AL.
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.
Missouri Pacific Railway Company challenged a judgment awarding damages to the guardian of a switchman killed in the company's employment, arguing that the Federal Employers' Liability Act should have been applied instead of state law. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because the railway company failed to raise or claim rights under the federal act in the trial court, the Court could not review the state court's judgment on federal grounds.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
Charles H. Small was killed at Kansas City while employed by plaintiff in error as a switchman. Relying upon a state statute, the guardian of his minor children sued for damages in the Jackson County Circuit Court and recovered a judgment which the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, May 15, 1916. We are asked to reverse that action because the Federal Employers’ Liability Act was not applied, but rights and liabilities were determined according to state laws.
Unless some right, privilege, or immunity under the federal act was duly, and especially claimed .we have no jurisdiction. Judicial Code, § 237. Speaking for the court in Erie R. R. Co. v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148, 154, Mr. Justice Harlan announced the applicable rule. “Now, where a party — drawing in question in this court a state enactment as invalid under the Constitution of the United States, or asserting that the final judgment of the highest court of a State denied to him a right or immunity under the Constitution of the United States — did not raise such question or especially set up or claim.such right or immunity in the trial court, this court cannot review such final judgment and hold that the state enactment was unconstitutional or that the right or immunity so claimed had been denied by the highest court of the State, if that court. did nothing-- more than decline to pass upon the Federal question because not raised in the trial court as required by the state practice. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181; Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538; Morrison v. Watson, 154 U. S. 111, 115.”
The original action was based upon a state statute; the answer did not set up or rely upon the federal act; the trial court’s attention was not called thereto; and although urged to hold liability depended upon it, the Supreme Court declined to pass upon that point because not presented to the trial court. This ruling seems in entire accord with both state statutes and established practice. Rev. Stats. Mo. 1909, § 2081; St. Louis v. Flanagan, 129 Missouri, 178; Freeland v. Williamson, 220 Missouri, 217.
The writ must be dismissed.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Sur. Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1932)…ings, Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181; Baldwin v. Kansas, 129 U. S. 52, 56-57; Jacobi v. Alabama, 187 U. S. 133; Layton v. Missouri, 187 U. S. 356; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Woodford, 234 U. S. 46, 51; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Taber, 244 U. S. 200, 201-202; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Sealy, 248 U. S. 363, 365; Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U. S. 454, 460; Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 249 U. S. 490, 493-494; cf. Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U. S. 492, 496.…
-
Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1924)…y entertained and considered upon petition to rehear. A mere denial of the petition by the state court without opinion, is not enough. Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179, 181; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Taber, 244 U. S. 200; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240, 241; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 334; Forbes v. State Council of Virginia, 216 U. S. 396, 399; McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 437; Mutual…
-
Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1919)…t comes too late unless the court actually entertains the petition and passes upon the point. Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 308; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Taber, 244 U. S. 200. The writ of error is Dismissed.…
Authorities Cited
- Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1887)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Purdy, 185 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1902)
- Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1894)
- Morrison v. Watson, 154 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1894)