TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Pennsylvania Co. v. Donat

Pennsylvania Company v. Donat

Pa. Co. v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50 (1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 1, 1915
Docket
No. 564
Judges
McReynolds
Citations
239 U.S. 5036 S. Ct. 460 L. Ed. 1391915 U.S. LEXIS 1524
Syllabus
In an action based on the Employers’ Liability Act the trial court properly submitted to the jury for its determination whether on the facts shown in regard to movement of cars coming from without the State, the plaintiff was or was not engaged in interestate commerce and properly refused to charge that he was not so engaged and therefore could not recover. A writ of error to review'such a judgment is so frivolous as not to need further argument and a motion to affirm must be granted under § 5 of Rule 6.
Summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. The facts, which involve the duty of this court in the case of a frivolous appeal in a case under the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion — McReynolds

Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice McReynolds, by direction of the court.

The question presented upon this writ of error is “so frivolous as not to need further argument,” and the motion to affirm the judgment below must be granted. (Rule 6, § 5.)

Basing his claim upon the Employers’ Liability Act of April '22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 , Marion Donat began the original action in the United States District Court for Indiana against the Pennsylvania Company, a carrier by railroad, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by him while employed as a yard conductor. The trial court refused a request to charge that he was not engaged in interstate commerce when the accident occurred and therefore could not re *52 cover. This refusal is the sole ground upon which error is now asserted.

Two loaded coal cars coming from without the State were received in the carrier’s yard at Fort Wayne, Indiana. They were destined to Olds’ private switch-track connecting with the yard; and acting under instructions Donat commenced the switching movement requisite to place them thereon. There was evidence tending to show that in order to complete this movement it became necessary to uncouple the engine from the loaded cars and with it to remove two empty ones from the private track. While engaged about the removal defendant in error was injured: The trial court submitted to the jury for determination whether he was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury, and in approving such action (224 Fed. Rep. 1021) the Circuit Court of Appeals was clearly right.

N. Y. Cent. & Hudson River R. R.

v. Carr, 238 U. S. 260, 262-263 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 52 cases

View all citing references →
1916: 71917: 21918: 21919: 21921: 31922: 41923: 11924: 21925: 21926: 21927: 31929: 11930: 31931: 11932: 11933: 11934: 11935: 11936: 21937: 11938: 21939: 31940: 11941: 11944: 11946: 11955: 119162026peak 1916 · 7

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hoffman v. New York, N. H. & H. R.74 F.2d 227 (2d Cir. 1934)
  2. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Bridal94 F.2d 117 (8th Cir. 1938)
  3. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Jolly's Administratrix23 S.W.2d 564 (Ky. Ct. App. 1930)
  4. Colorado Radio Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission118 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1941)
  5. Hallstein v. Pennsylvania R. Co.30 F.2d 594 (6th Cir. 1929)
  6. Sullivan v. Matt278 P.2d 499 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)

Most recent

  1. Sullivan v. Matt278 P.2d 499 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
  2. Miles v. Pennsylvania R.158 F.2d 336 (7th Cir. 1946)
  3. Avance v. Thompson55 N.E.2d 57 (Ill. 1944)
  4. Colorado Radio Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission118 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1941)
  5. Voelker v. Delaware, L. & W. R.31 F. Supp. 387 (W.D.N.Y. 1940)
  6. McCabe v. Boston Terminal Co.22 N.E.2d 33 (Mass. 1939)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260 (1915) 206

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list