Skip to main content

ST LOUIS, I M & S R CO v. HESTERLY , 228 U.S. 702 (1913)

United States Supreme Court

ST LOUIS, I M & S R. CO. v. HESTERLY(1913)

No. 297

Decided: May 26, 1913

[228 U.S. 702, 703]   Messrs. W. E. Hemingway, Martin L. Clardy, and Thomas B. Pryor for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Joseph M. Hill, James Brizzolara, and Henry L. Fitzhugh for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action for personal injuries resulting in the death of the plaintiff's intestate. There are two counts, the first for the pecuniary loss to the next of kin, laid at $5,000, the other for the injury and pain suffered by the intestate, laid at $25,000. The death was caused by a defect in a car on which the intestate was a brakeman, the car being part of a train running from Van Buren, Arkansas, to Coffeyville, Kansas. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,000 on the first count, and for $10,000 on the second. The supreme court of the state sustained the judgment on condition of a remittitur of $5,000; this was entered and judgment was rendered for $7,000. At the trial the defendant asked for a ruling that the plaintiff could not recover damages for pain under the second count, which was denied, subject to exception. The supreme court treated the request as intended to raise the question whether the employers' liability act of Congress of April 22, 1908, chap. 149, 35 Stat. at L. 65, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1322, displaced the state law, as undoubtedly it was; stated that the suit was [228 U.S. 702, 704]   not based upon that act, and held that the act of Congress was only supplementary, and that the judgment could be upheld under the state law. 98 Ark. 240, 135 S. W. 874.

The plaintiff contends that the claim of right under the law of the United States, and against that under the law of the state, was not presented with clearness enough to save it. But as the supreme court held the question sufficiently raised and decided it, that objection is not open here. San Jose Land & Water Co. v. San Jose Ranch Co. 189 U.S. 177, 180 , 47 S. L. ed. 765, 768, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 487; Eau Claire Nat. Bank v. Jackman, 204 U.S. 522, 533 , 51 S. L. ed. 596, 604, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 394.

The same answer may be given to the suggestion that the defendant is estopped having pleaded contributory negligence, and thus having relied upon the state law. Moreover, the plaintiff, not the defendant, had the election how the suit should be brought, and as he relied upon the state law, the defendant had no choice, if it was to defend upon the facts. Whether the defendant could have defeated the first count also on the ground that the plaintiff was suing upon a statute of one jurisdiction, whereas the action could be maintained only on that of another, need not be decided, since the defendant asks reversal of only so much of the judgment as rests on the second count. Hence it is unnecessary to consider whether the principle of Union P. R. Co. v. Wyler, 158 U.S. 285 , 39 L. ed. 983, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 877; or that of Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U.S. 570, 577 , 57 S. L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 135, should be applied. See further, Troxell v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 227 U.S. 434, 442 , 57 S. L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 274; Northern P. R. Co. v. Slaght, 205 U.S. 122, 131 , 51 S. L. ed. 738, 741, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 442; United States v. Dalcour, 203 U.S. 408, 423 , 51 S. L. ed. 248, 251, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58.

Coming to the merits, it now is decided that the act of Congress supresedes state laws in the matter with which it deals. Second Employers' Liability Cases (Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.) 223 U.S. 1 , 53-55, 56 L. ed. 327, 347, 348, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 44, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 169; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U.S. 570, 576 , 57 S. L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 135; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 67 , 57 S. L. ed . --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192. The act deals with [228 U.S. 702, 705]   the liability of carriers, while engaged in commerce between the states, for defects in cars. 1. In the case of death, the only action is one for the benefit of the next of kin. 1. Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 67 , 68 S., 57 L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192; American R. Co. v. Didricksen, 227 U.S. 145, 149 , 57 S. L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 228 U.S. 173, 175 , 57 S. L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426. Therefore the ruling of the state court was wrong. The amendment of April 5, 1910, chap. 143, 2, 36 Stat. at L. 291, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1325, in like manner allows but one recovery, although it provides for survival of the right of the injured person. The amendment, however, does not apply to this case, as the death occurred in August, 1909

Judgment reversed.

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law
ST LOUIS, I M & S R CO v. HESTERLY , 228 U.S. 702 (1913)

Citation: 228 U.S. 702

Docket No: No. 297

Decided: May 26, 1913

Court: United States Supreme Court

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard