Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Jones

Alabama Court of Appeals

Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Jones

67 So. 632, 12 Ala. App. 419, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 182

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 67 So. 632 (Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Jones, 67 So. 632, 12 Ala. App. 419, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 182 (Ala. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

After tbe original opinion in this • case was rendered (Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Jones, 9 Ala. App. 499, 63 South. 693), and while the case was before the Supreme Court on writ of certiora-ri, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered an opinion in the case of Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492, 34 Sup. Ct. 635, 58 L. Ed. 1062, finally and conclusively holding that the federal Employers’ Liability Act of 1908 takes possession of the field of the employers’ liability to employees engaged in interstate matters, to the exclusion of all state laws covering the same field. Following that holding, and applying the rule there laid down to this case when before it, our Supreme Court naturally held that there could be no recovery based on the state statute in cases arising under and governed exclusively by the federal statute (Ex parte Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 67 South. 256), and that, as count 3% of the plaintiff’s complaint was drawn and sought a recovery under the state statute (Code, § 3910), it was error, requiring a reversal, to refuse the general charge requested by the defendant as to a recovery on that count. It follows from what we have said that, because of the error of the trial court in refusing the defendant’s general charge on count 3% of the complaint, the judgment of that court must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PELHAM, P. J.

After tbe original opinion in this • case was rendered (Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Jones, 9 Ala. App. 499, 63 South. 693), and while the case was before the Supreme Court on writ of certiora-ri, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered an opinion in the case of Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492, 34 Sup. Ct. 635, 58 L. Ed. 1062, finally and conclusively holding that the federal Employers’ Liability Act of 1908 takes possession of the field of the employers’ liability to employees engaged in interstate matters, to the exclusion of all state laws covering the same field. Following that holding, and applying the rule there laid down to this case when before it, our Supreme Court naturally held that there could be no recovery based on the state statute in cases arising under and governed exclusively by the federal statute (Ex parte Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 67 South. 256), and that, as count 3% of the plaintiff’s complaint was drawn and sought a recovery under the state statute (Code, § 3910), it was error, requiring a reversal, to refuse the general charge requested by the defendant as to a recovery on that count. It follows from what we have said that, because of the error of the trial court in refusing the defendant’s general charge on count 3% of the complaint, the judgment of that court must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 632, 12 Ala. App. 419, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-coast-line-ry-co-v-jones-alactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack