Pennsylvania Co. v. Donat , 239 U.S. 50 ( 1915 )


Menu:
  • 239 U.S. 50 (1915)

    PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY
    v.
    DONAT.

    No. 564.

    Supreme Court of United States.

    Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 18, 1915.
    Decided November 1, 1915.
    ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

    *51 Mr. Rufus S. Day, Mr. Samuel Herrick, Mr. R.B. Newcomb, Mr. James B. Harper, Mr. A.G. Newcomb, Mr. E.C. Chapman, Mr. George M. Skiles, Mr. Thomas J. Green, Mr. Roscoe C. Skiles and Mr. Otto E. Fuelber, for defendant in error in support of the motion.

    Mr. Samuel O. Pickens, Mr. Frederic D. McKenney, Mr. Elmer E. Leonard, Mr. James H. Rose and Mr. Fred E. Zollars for plaintiff in error in opposition to the motion.

    Memorandum opinion by MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS, by direction of the court.

    The question presented upon this writ of error is "so frivolous as not to need further argument," and the motion to affirm the judgment below must be granted. (Rule 6, § 5.)

    Basing his claim upon the Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65, Marion Donat began the original action in the United States District Court for Indiana against the Pennsylvania Company, a carrier by railroad, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by him while employed as a yard conductor. The trial court refused a request to charge that he was not engaged in interstate commerce when the accident occurred and therefore could not recover. *52 This refusal is the sole ground upon which error is now asserted.

    Two loaded coal cars coming from without the State were received in the carrier's yard at Fort Wayne, Indiana. They were destined to Olds' private switch-track connecting with the yard; and acting under instructions Donat commenced the switching movement requisite to place them thereon. There was evidence tending to show that in order to complete this movement it became necessary to uncouple the engine from the loaded cars and with it to remove two empty ones from the private track. While engaged about the removal defendant in error was injured. The trial court submitted to the jury for determination whether he was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury, and in approving such action (224 Fed. Rep. 1021) the Circuit Court of Appeals was clearly right. N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260, 262-263.

    Affirmed.

Document Info

DocketNumber: 564

Citation Numbers: 239 U.S. 50, 36 S. Ct. 4, 60 L. Ed. 139, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1524

Filed Date: 11/1/1915

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/15/2017

Cited By (25)

Pecos & Northern Texas R. Co. v. Rosenbloom , 240 U.S. 439 ( 1916 )

Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Parker , 242 U.S. 13 ( 1916 )

Southern R. Co. v. Puckett , 244 U.S. 571 ( 1917 )

Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co. , 249 U.S. 152 ( 1919 )

Sullivan v. Matt , 130 Cal. App. 2d 134 ( 1955 )

Hallstein v. Pennsylvania R. Co. , 30 F.2d 594 ( 1929 )

Hoffman v. New York, NH & HR Co. , 74 F.2d 227 ( 1934 )

Wabash Ry. Co. v. Bridal , 94 F.2d 117 ( 1938 )

Colorado Radio Corp. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COM'N. , 118 F.2d 24 ( 1941 )

Kiefer v. E., J. E. Ry. Co. , 351 Ill. 634 ( 1933 )

Avance v. Thompson , 387 Ill. 77 ( 1944 )

Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle , 215 Ind. 402 ( 1939 )

Louisville Nashville Railroad Co. v. Jolly's Admrx. , 232 Ky. 702 ( 1930 )

Crouch v. Chicago Great Western R. Co. , 172 Minn. 447 ( 1927 )

Witort v. Chicago North Western Railway Co. , 170 Minn. 482 ( 1927 )

Gieseking v. Litchfield Madison Ry. Co. , 344 Mo. 672 ( 1939 )

Midway Bank Trust Co. v. Davis , 288 Mo. 563 ( 1921 )

Gieseking v. Litchfield Madison Ry. Co. , 339 Mo. 1 ( 1936 )

McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co. , 341 Mo. 516 ( 1937 )

Rogers v. Mobile Ohio Railroad Co. , 337 Mo. 140 ( 1935 )

View All Citing Opinions »