Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Taber

Supreme Court

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Taber

244 U.S. 200, 37 S. Ct. 522, 61 L. Ed. 1082, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1626

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 21, 1917

Docket760

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 244 U.S. 200 (Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Taber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Taber, 244 U.S. 200, 37 S. Ct. 522, 61 L. Ed. 1082, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1626 (1917).

Pincite

Opinion

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 immu *202 nity 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.

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

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 immu *202 nity 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 U.S. 200, 37 S. Ct. 522, 61 L. Ed. 1082, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-pacific-railway-co-v-taber-scotus-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack