Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Taber

Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Taber, 244 U.S. 200 (1917)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1917-05-21
Topic
general

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court. Charles H. Small was killed at Kansas City while employed by plaintiff in error as a switchman. Relying upon a state statute, the guardian of his minor children sued for damages in the Jackson County Circuit Court and recovered a judgment which the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, May 15, 1916.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Taber. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Supreme Court Jurisdiction The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review a state court judgment unless a right, privilege, or immunity under federal law was duly and especially claimed and presented in the trial court.
  2. Civil Procedure — Preservation of Federal Claims Where a party asserting that a state enactment is invalid under the Constitution, or that a right or immunity under the Constitution has been denied, did not raise that question or especially set up or claim such right or immunity in the trial court, the Supreme Court cannot review the final judgment on that ground, even if the state court declined to pass on the federal question solely because it was not raised below as required by state practice.
  3. Civil Procedure — Adequate State Grounds A state court's refusal to consider a federal question because it was not presented to the trial court as required by state practice is an adequate and independent state ground that bars Supreme Court review.
Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Charles H. Small was killed at Kansas City while employed by plaintiff in error as a switchman. Relying upon a state statute, the guardian of his minor children sued for damages in the Jackson County Circuit Court and recovered a judgment which the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, May 15, 1916. We are asked to reverse that action because the Federal Employers’ Liability Act was not applied, but rights and liabilities were determined according to state laws.

Unless some right, privilege, or immunity under the federal act was duly, and especially claimed .we have no jurisdiction. Judicial Code, § 237. Speaking for the court in Erie R. R. Co. v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148, 154, Mr. Justice Harlan announced the applicable rule. “Now, where a party — drawing in question in this court a state enactment as invalid under the Constitution of the United States, or asserting that the final judgment of the highest court of a State denied to him a right or immunity under the Constitution of the United States — did not raise such question or especially set up or claim.such right or immu *202 nity in the trial court, this court cannot review such final judgment and hold that the state enactment was unconstitutional or that the right or immunity so claimed had been denied by the highest court of the State, if that court. did nothing-- more than decline to pass upon the Federal question because not raised in the trial court as required by the state practice. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181; Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538; Morrison v. Watson, 154 U. S. 111, 115.”

The original action was based upon a state statute; the answer did not set up or rely upon the federal act; the trial court’s attention was not called thereto; and although urged to hold liability depended upon it, the Supreme Court declined to pass upon that point because not presented to the trial court. This ruling seems in entire accord with both state statutes and established practice. Rev. Stats. Mo. 1909, § 2081; St. Louis v. Flanagan, 129 Missouri, 178; Freeland v. Williamson, 220 Missouri, 217.

The writ must be dismissed.

Dismissed.