Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Herrick, 127 U.S. 210 (1888)
Case details
Citation
127 U.S. 210
Full caption
MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. HERRICK.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
Apr. 23, 1888
MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. HERRICK.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
No. 202. Argued April 2, 3,1888. — Decided April 23,1888.
This case is affirmed on the authority of Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v.
Mackey, ante, 205.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. C. K. Davis for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Edward J. Hill for defendant in error.
Mr . Jus ti ce Fie ld delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant is a corporation created under the laws of Minnesota, and in December, 1881, it operated a railroad p. 211extending from Minneapolis, in that State, to Fort Dodge, in Iowa. A law of Iowa, then in force, provides that “every corporation operating a railway shall be liable for all damages sustained by any person, including employés of such corporation, in consequence of the neglect of agents, or by any mismanagement of the engineers or other employés of the corporation, and in consequence of the wilful wrongs, whether of commission or omission, of such agents, engineers, or other employés, when such wrongs are in any manner connected with the use and operation of any railway on or about which they shall be employed, and no contract which restricts such liability shall be legal or binding.”
On the 6th of December, 1881, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a brakeman on one of its cars, and on that day, in Webster, in Iowa, it became his duty to make a coupling of an engine and a freight car. The engine was in charge of one of its employés, an engineer, and whilst the plaintiff was making the coupling the engine was, by the negligence and mismanagement of the engineer, driven against the car, causing severe and permanent injuries to the plaintiff. To recover damages for the injuries thus sustained he brought this action in a District Court of Minnesota, relying upon the law of Iowa quoted above. The defendant in its answer alleged, and on the trial contended, that this law was abrogated by that provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares that no State shall deprive any person of property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The District Court held the law to be in full force, and that under it the railroad company was responsible to the plaintiff for the injuries sustained by him through the negligence of the engineer. The plaintiff accordingly recovered a verdict for two thousand dollars, upon which judgment was entered. Upon appeal to the State Supreme Court the judgment was affirmed, and to review that judgment the case is brought here.
We have just decided the case of Missouri Pacific Railwa/y Co. v. Mackey, ante, 205, where similar objections were raised p. 212to a law of Kansas, which on the point here involved is not essentially different from the law of Iowa, namely, in imposing liabilities upon railroad companies for injuries to employes in its service, though caused by the negligence or incompetency of a fellow-servant, and we held that the law was not in conflict with the clauses referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment. On the authority of that case the judgment in the present one must be
Affirmed.
UNITED STATES v. BROADHEAD.
UNITED STATES v. BROADHEAD.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
Nos. 233, 234. Argued April 18, 1888. — Decided April 30,1888.
On the authority of United States v. Hill, 123 U. S. 681, it is held, that an action against sureties to recover on a bail bond conditioned for the appearance of the principal to answer to an indictment for making and : forging checks against an assistant treasurer is not a case for the
enforcement of a revenue law, within the intent of Rev. Stat. § 699.
No interest can be recovered in an action by the United States upon a bail bond conditioned for the appearance of a person to answer to an indictment for forgery.
The se were actions against sureties on bail bonds. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for plaintiff jn error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
Mr . Justice Mille r delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases are suits brought upon two bonds given by John F. Broadhead and his sureties, conditioned for his appearance in the District Court of the United States for the
JONES v. CRAIG. 213
District of California, to answer two separate indictments for making and forging checks on the Assistant Treasurer of the United States at San Francisco. The penalty of each of these bonds was $5000, and, according to well settled principles, no interest can be recovered in such a suit as this, nor can any recovery be had beyond the amount prescribed in these instruments, except for costs.
Section 3 of the “ act to facilitate the disposition of cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, and for other purposes,” approved February 16, 1875, 18 Stat. 315, c. 77, § 3, fixing the amount necessary to give jurisdiction to this court of writs of error from the Circuit Courts at a sum in excess of five thousand dollars, applies to the United States as well as to other parties, except in the cases enumerated in § 699 of the Revised Statutes. None of these exceptions apply to the present cases.
It was attempted in United States v. Hill, 123 U. S. 681, to establish the proposition that that case was for the enforcement of a revenue law, and, therefore, came within the exceptions specified. It was, however, overruled by this court, and the opinion in that case forbids the idea that these cases can be treated as an exception to the general rule.
As the act of 1875, above cited, requires that there shall be an amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, exceeding five thousand dollars, and as no such recovery can be had in the cases now under consideration,
The writs are dismissed.