Beem v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

D. Minnesota

Beem v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

55 F.2d 708, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1751

CourtDistrict Court, D. Minnesota

DecidedMarch 3, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 F.2d 708 (Beem v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beem v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 55 F.2d 708, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1751 (mnd 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

SANBORN, District Judge.

It is urged that, because of the decision in the ease of Douglas v. N. Y., N. H. & H. Rd. Co., 279 U. S. 377, 49 S. Ct. 355, 73 L. Ed. 747, this court may, in its discretion, refuse to assume jurisdiction of this case or to try it, it having originated in Illinois, being between residents of other states, and constituting an undue burden upon interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court, in the Douglas Case, held that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 TTSCA §§ 51-59) does not force a duty upon a state court to try a ease arising under it as against an otherwise valid excuse. The state court which refused to try that ease was excused from doing so by a valid state statute. This court is asked to hold that, because the defendant here has only thirty miles of its line in Minnesota, and because it is unreasonable that it should be forced to defend such an action in Minnesota, there is a valid excuse for refusing jurisdiction.

In Schendel v. McGee, 300 F. 273, the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit said, in effect, that, when a District Court had jurisdiction of a ease, it must try it. We have already held that the burden upon interstate commerce imposed by bringing of such cases in this jurisdiction did not confer upon us any discretion to refuse jurisdiction. Norris v. Illinois Central R. Co. (D. C.) 18 F.(2d) 584.

The motion is denied. The defendant may have five days in whieh to answer or demur.

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

SANBORN, District Judge.

It is urged that, because of the decision in the ease of Douglas v. N. Y., N. H. & H. Rd. Co., 279 U. S. 377, 49 S. Ct. 355, 73 L. Ed. 747, this court may, in its discretion, refuse to assume jurisdiction of this case or to try it, it having originated in Illinois, being between residents of other states, and constituting an undue burden upon interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court, in the Douglas Case, held that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 TTSCA §§ 51-59) does not force a duty upon a state court to try a ease arising under it as against an otherwise valid excuse. The state court which refused to try that ease was excused from doing so by a valid state statute. This court is asked to hold that, because the defendant here has only thirty miles of its line in Minnesota, and because it is unreasonable that it should be forced to defend such an action in Minnesota, there is a valid excuse for refusing jurisdiction.

In Schendel v. McGee, 300 F. 273, the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit said, in effect, that, when a District Court had jurisdiction of a ease, it must try it. We have already held that the burden upon interstate commerce imposed by bringing of such cases in this jurisdiction did not confer upon us any discretion to refuse jurisdiction. Norris v. Illinois Central R. Co. (D. C.) 18 F.(2d) 584.

The motion is denied. The defendant may have five days in whieh to answer or demur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 F.2d 708, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beem-v-illinois-cent-r-co-mnd-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack