Price and Others v. Pennsylvania R. Co

Supreme Court

Price and Others v. Pennsylvania R. Co

113 U.S. 218, 5 S. Ct. 427, 28 L. Ed. 980, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1672

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 26, 1885

Docket166

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 113 U.S. 218 (Price and Others v. Pennsylvania R. Co) 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

Price and Others v. Pennsylvania R. Co, 113 U.S. 218, 5 S. Ct. 427, 28 L. Ed. 980, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1672 (1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Miller

delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as above stated, and continued:

The plaintiff argues here, and insisted throughout the progress of the case in the State courts, that by reason of certain laws of the United States as applied to the facts found in the verdict of the jury, the decedent was a passenger, and the Supreme Court erred in holding otherwise.

These laws are thus cited in the brief of plaintiff’s-counsel:

“Act March 3, 1865, § 8,13 Stat. 506, provides that ‘Forthepurpose of assorting and distributing letters and other matter in railway post offices, the Postmaster General may, from time to time, appoint clerks who shall be paid out of the appropriation for mail transportation.’

“ § 4000 Rev. Stat. requires that ‘ Every railway company carrying the mail shall carry on any train which may run over its road, and without extra charge therefor, all mailable matter directed to be carried thereon, with the person in charge-of the same.’ ”

We do not' think these provisions either aid or govern the construction of the proviso in the Pennsylvania statute.

The person thus to be carried with the mail matter, without extra charge, is no more a passenger because he is in charge of the mail, nor because no other compensation is made for his transportation, than if he had no such charge, nor does the fact that.he is in the employment of the United States, and that defendant is bound by contract with the government to carry him, affect the question. It would be just the same if the company had contracted with any other person who had 'charge of freight on the train to carry him without additional compensation. The statutes of the United States which authorize this employment and direct this service do not, therefore, make the person so engaged a passenger, or deprive, him of that charac *222 ter, in construing the Pennsylvania statúté,' Nbr does it give to persons sq employed any rigjit, as agaiqst the railroad company, which would not belong to any other' persón in a similar employment, by others than the United States.

We are, therefore, of opinion that no question of federal authority was involved in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the writ of error is accordingly

Dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice Miller

delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as above stated, and continued:

The plaintiff argues here, and insisted throughout the progress of the case in the State courts, that by reason of certain laws of the United States as applied to the facts found in the verdict of the jury, the decedent was a passenger, and the Supreme Court erred in holding otherwise.

These laws are thus cited in the brief of plaintiff’s-counsel:

“Act March 3, 1865, § 8,13 Stat. 506, provides that ‘Forthepurpose of assorting and distributing letters and other matter in railway post offices, the Postmaster General may, from time to time, appoint clerks who shall be paid out of the appropriation for mail transportation.’

“ § 4000 Rev. Stat. requires that ‘ Every railway company carrying the mail shall carry on any train which may run over its road, and without extra charge therefor, all mailable matter directed to be carried thereon, with the person in charge-of the same.’ ”

We do not' think these provisions either aid or govern the construction of the proviso in the Pennsylvania statute.

The person thus to be carried with the mail matter, without extra charge, is no more a passenger because he is in charge of the mail, nor because no other compensation is made for his transportation, than if he had no such charge, nor does the fact that.he is in the employment of the United States, and that defendant is bound by contract with the government to carry him, affect the question. It would be just the same if the company had contracted with any other person who had 'charge of freight on the train to carry him without additional compensation. The statutes of the United States which authorize this employment and direct this service do not, therefore, make the person so engaged a passenger, or deprive, him of that charac *222 ter, in construing the Pennsylvania statúté,' Nbr does it give to persons sq employed any rigjit, as agaiqst the railroad company, which would not belong to any other' persón in a similar employment, by others than the United States.

We are, therefore, of opinion that no question of federal authority was involved in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the writ of error is accordingly

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 U.S. 218, 5 S. Ct. 427, 28 L. Ed. 980, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-and-others-v-pennsylvania-r-co-scotus-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack