DAVIS, AGENT APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920,
v.
CURRIE

U.S. | 1924-11-17
No. 60
266 U.S. 182 Supreme Court of the United States (1924) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 69 L. Ed. 234 · 45 S. Ct. 88 · SCDB 1924-041 · 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2910
Cited by 6 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

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging a judgment against the United States Railroad Administration for damages based on humiliation and wounded feelings resulting from alleged wrongful conduct by a government agent. The Court held that the petition did not accurately state the case presented at trial and therefore could not be considered on its merits.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mb. Justice McReynolds

Mb. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ must be dismissed. The petition therefor declared — The sole question presented is, “ Can damages for humiliation and wounded feelings be awarded the respondent against the petitioner, the United States Railroad Administration, under the provisions of the Federal Control Act, the proclamations of the President and the general orders of the Director General pursuant thereto? ”

At the hearing counsel relied on the following: “ The judgment against the Director General of Railroads for wounded feelings and humiliation arising out of a wanton, willful and malicious act of his servant is unauthorized, involving, essentially, the infliction of a penalty upon the Government.” The argument was that although the trial court distinctly limited the jury to actual damages, nevertheless, it necessarily follows from the size of the verdict that punitive damages were assessed against and a penalty was imposed upon the United States.

The petition did not state the case presented at the bar. Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Trustees v. Martin, 268 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1925)
    …questions not raised or disclosed by the record brought to it for a review and which were not considered by the courts below. McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 283; Bass, etc., Ltd. v. Tax Commission, 266 U. S. 271, 285. And see Davis v. Currie, 266 U. S. 182 and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Woolridge, ante p. 234. In these circumstances, the petitioners can not be heard to claim anything in these cases under the Act of 1873, and-beyond this, we decide nothing in respect to it. Judgment of…
  • Rice v. Sioux City Mem'l Park Cemetery, Inc., 349 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1955)
    …3 U. S. 1; Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440; Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, Inc., 261 U. S. 387; Southern Rower Co. v. North Carolina Pub. Serv. Co., 263 U. S. 508; Keller v. Adams-Campbell Co., 264 U. S. 314; Davis v. Currie, 266 U. S. 182; Erie R. Co. v. Kirkendall, 266 U. S. 185; Southern California Edison Co. v. Herminghaus, 275 U. S. 486; Mellon v. McKinley, 275 U. S. 492; Missouri-K.-T. R. Co. v. Texas, 275 U. S. 494; Ellison v. Koswig, 276 U. S. 598; Johnson v. Thornburgh, 276…
  • Sutter v. Midland Valley R. Co., 280 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1929)
    …S. 597] is dismissed as improvidently granted, in that it now appears that the petition for certiorari did not adequately and fairly disclose the questions involved and the grounds upon which the state court rested its decision. See Davis v. Currie, 266 U. S. 182.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw