TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. Hancock

Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company v. Hancock

Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. Hancock, 253 U.S. 284 (1919)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 15, 1919
Docket
No. 415
Judges
McReynolds, Clarke
Citations
253 U.S. 28440 S. Ct. 51264 L. Ed. 9071920 U.S. LEXIS 1422
Syllabus
Gars of coal destined beyond the State, as shown by memoranda delivered to the conductor at the mine, were moving from the mine to a yard, where they were to be gathered into a train and thence moved some miles to*a weighing station, there to be weighed and billed to specific consignees ,in another State, the freight charges to be assessed "and paid from mine to consignee. Held, in applying the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, that the first movement was part of an interstate movement. P. 286.
Summary
ERROR AND CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. The case is 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

*285 Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment below affirmed an award for respondent under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Pennsylvania, granted because of the death of her husband from an accident while in the petitioner’s employ as a trainman.

After a writ of error had been sued out we allowed a "writ of certiorari. The former must be dismissed; the case is properly here üpón the latter.

. If, when the accident occurred, the husband was employed in commerce between States the challenged judgment- must be reversed. And he was so employed if any of the cars in his train contained interstate freight. Employers’ Liability Act, April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 ;

St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry. Co.

v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 161 ;

New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co.

v. Carr, 238 U. S. 260 ;

New York Central R. R. Co.

v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147 ;

New York Central R. R. Co.

v. Porter, 249 U. S. 168 ;

Southern Pacific Company v. Industrial Accident Commission, 251 U. S. 259 .

The essential facts are not in controversy; the nature of the employment, therefore, is a question of law.

The duties of the deceased. never took him out of Pennsylvania; they related solely to transporting coal from the mines. When injured he belonged to a crew operating a train of loaded cars from Locust Gap Colliery to Locust Summit Yard, two miles away. The ultimate destination of some of these cars was outside of Pennsylvania. This appeared from instruction cards or memoranda delivered to' the conductor by the shipping clerk at the mine. Each of these referred to a particular ear by number and contained certain code letters indicating that such car with its load would move beyond the State.

Pursuing the ordinary course these cars were hauled to *286 Locust Summit Yard and placed upon appropriate tracks; there the duties of the first crew in respect of them terminated. Later, having gathered them into a train, another crew moved them some ten miles to Shamokin Scales - where they were inspected, weighed and billed to specifically designated consignees in another State. In due time they passed to their final destinations over proper lines. Freight charges at through rates were assessed and paid for the entire distance beginning at the mine.

Respondent maintains that the coal in cars ticketed for transportation as above described did not become part of interstate commerce until such cars reached Shamokin Scales and were there weighed and billed. But we think former opinions of this court require the contrary conclusion. The coal was in the course of transportation to another State when the cars left the mine. There was no interruption of the movement; it always continued towards points as originally intended. The determining circumstance is that the shipment was but a step in the transportation of the coal to real and ultimate destinations in another State.

Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517 ;

Railroad Commission of Ohio v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101, 108 ;

Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co.

v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111, 124, 126 ;

Railroad Commission of Louisiana v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 229 U. S. 336, 341 ;

Baer Brothers Mercantile Co.

v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 233 U. S. 479 .

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.' Mr. Justice Clarke dissents.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 6 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 70 cases

View all citing references →
1920: 11921: 51922: 51923: 11924: 11925: 51926: 21927: 31928: 11929: 11930: 31931: 11932: 11933: 11934: 11935: 11936: 21937: 21938: 11939: 21940: 21941: 31942: 31943: 11944: 11945: 21946: 11948: 11949: 11971: 11976: 11979: 21994: 12020: 42021: 32022: 12023: 12024: 119202026peak 1921 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc.966 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2020)
  2. Kach v. Monessen Southwestern Ry. Co.151 F.2d 400 (3d Cir. 1945)
  3. Geraghty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.70 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1934)
  4. Jordan v. Erie Railroad Co.22 A.2d 116 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1941)
  5. Lapointe v. Silko Motor Sales, Inc.No. 18-1848P (1st Cir. July 17, 2020)
  6. Walling v. Mutual Wholesale Food & Supply Co.141 F.2d 331 (8th Cir. 1944)

Most recent

  1. Brock v. Flowers Foods121 F.4th 753 (10th Cir. 2024)
  2. Fraga v. Premium Retail Services, Inc.61 F.4th 228 (1st Cir. 2023)
  3. Immediato v. Postmates, Inc.54 F.4th 67 (1st Cir. 2022)
  4. SINGH v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.No. 3:16-cv-03044 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2021)
  5. Bean v. ES Partners, Inc.No. 0:20-cv-62047 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2021)
  6. Latrice Saxon v. Southwest Airlines Company993 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2021)

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 10

DepthCaseCited by
Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517 (1886) 433
N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147 (1916) 297
St. Louis v. Seale, 229 U.S. 156 (1913) 276
N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260 (1915) 206
Tex. & New Orleans R.R. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111 (1913) 203
R.R. Comm'n of Ohio v. Worthington, Receiver of Wheeling & Lake Erie R.R. Co., 225 U.S. 101 (1912) 108
Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Denver & Rio Grande R.R., 233 U.S. 479 (1914) 77
R.R. Comm'n v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 229 U.S. 336 (1913) 64
Southern Pac. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 251 U.S. 259 (1920) 63
N.Y. Cent. R.R. v. Porter, 249 U.S. 168 (1919) 58

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