Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Polt

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. Polt

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Polt, 232 U.S. 165 (1914)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: January 26, 1914
Docket: No. 161
Judges: Holmes
Citations: 232 U.S. 16534 S. Ct. 30158 L. Ed. 5541914 U.S. LEXIS 1405

Syllabus

While the States have a large latitude in the policy they will pursue in regard to enforcing prompt settlement of claims against railroad companies, the rudiments of fair play to the companies as required by the Fourteenth Amendment must be recognized. The statute of South Dakota of 1907, c. 215, making railroad companies liable for double damages in case of failure to pay a claim or to offer a sum equal to what the jury finds the claimant entitled to, held to be unconstitutional as depriving the companies of their property without due process of law. St. Louis, Iron Mtn. & Southern Ry. v. Wynne, 224 U. S. 354, followed; Yazoo & Miss. Valley R. R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U. S. 217, distinguished.

Summary

ERROR TO THE . SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP SOUTH DAKOTA. The facts, which involve the validity under the due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of a judgment for' double damages entered under a railroad claim statute of South Dakota, are stated in the opinion. Chapter 215, Session Laws of South Dakota for 1907, is unconstitutional in that it imposes a penalty for delinquency in payment of a debt. ' The act discriminates against one class of litigants in favor of another, denying to plaintiff in error equal protection of the laws. The law in its operation is pernicious and works a rank injustice. In support of these contentions see A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96; Builders’ Supply Depot v. O’Connor, 150 California, 265; Black v. M. & St. L. Ry. Co., 122 Iowa, 32; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas, 387, 388; Coal Co. v. Rosser, 53 Oh. St. 22, 24; Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Moss, 60 Mississippi, 641; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards, 183 U. S. 79; County of San Mateo v. So. Pac. R. Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 722; Denver & R. G. Co. v. Outcalt, 2 Colo. App. 394; Grand Island Ry. Co. v. Swinhank, 51 Nebraska, 521; Gulf, Col. &c. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150; Hurtando v. California, 110 U. S. 535; Hocking Valley Coal Co. v. Rosser, 52 Oh. St. 12; Jolliffe v. Brown, 14 Washington, 155; Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. Rep. 722, 782; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Wynne, 224. U. S. 258; Seaboard Air Line v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 73; South. & N. Ala. R. Co. v. Morris, 65 Alabama, 193; Sutpeck v. Un. Pac. Ry. Co., 200 Fed. Rep. 192; Un. Pac. Ry. Co. v. DeBusk, 12 Colorado, 294; Wadsworth v. Un. Pac. Ry. Co., 19. Colorado, 600; Williamson v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 105 Fed. Rep. 31; Wilder v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 70 Michigan, 382.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Holmes

Me. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit against the plaintiff in error for loss of property destroyed by fire communicated from its locomotive engine. A statute of South Dakota, after making -the Railroad Company absolutely responsible in such cases, goes on to make it liable for double the amount of damage actually sustained unless it pays the full amount .within sixty days from notice. If, within sixty days, it shall “offer in writing to pay a fixed sum, being the full amount of the damages sustained and the owner shall refuse to accept the same, then in any action thereafter brought for such damages when such owner recovers a less sum as-damages than the amount so offered, then such owner shall recover only his damages, and the railway company shall recover its costs.” South Dakota Laws, 1907, c. 215. The plaintiff got a verdict for $780. The Railroad had offered $500; less, that is, than the amount of the verdict, while the plaintiff on the other hand demanded more. In his demand, his declaration and his testimony he set the damage at $838.20. A judgment for double damages was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 26 So. Dak. 378.

The defendant in error presented no argument, probably becausedie realized that under the recent decisions *168 of this court the judgment could not be sustained. No doubt the States have a large latitude in the policy that they will pursue and enforce, but the rudiments of fair play required by the Fourteenth Amendment are wanting when a defendant is required to guess rightly what a jury will find, or pay double if that body sees fit to add one cent to the amount that was tendered, although the tender was obviously futile because of an excessive demand. The case is covered by St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co.

v. Wynne, 224 U. S. 354 . It is not like those in which a moderate penalty is imposed for failure to satisfy a demand found to be just.

Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co.

v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U. S. 217 .

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 57 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Sands v. Wainwright357 F. Supp. 1062 (M.D. Fla. 1973)
National Labor Relations Board v. Phelps136 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1943)
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board120 F.2d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1941)
General Electric Co. v. Jackson595 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009)
Dolcin Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission219 F.2d 742 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
E. B. Muller & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission142 F.2d 511 (6th Cir. 1944)

Most recent

General Electric Co. v. Jackson595 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009)
General Electric Co. v. BrownerNo. 2000-2855 (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2009)
Costa v. Lauderdale Beach Hotel626 A.2d 566 (Pa. 1993)
State, ex rel. Finley v. Dusty Drilling Co.441 N.E.2d 1128 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981)
Raymond D. Womer v. Robert Hampton496 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1974)
Sands v. Wainwright357 F. Supp. 1062 (M.D. Fla. 1973)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Yazoo & Miss. Valley R.R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217 (1912)	107
	St. Louis v. Wynne, 224 U.S. 354 (1912)	48

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list