Case Title: Bourguet v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad

Citation: 334 P.2d 1107, 65 N.M. 200

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1958-12-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
334 P.2d 1107 (1958) 65 N.M. 200 Jeff BOURGUET, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 6387. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 31, 1958. *1108 McAtee, Toulouse & Marchiondo, Lorenzo A. Chavez, Arturo G. Ortega and Melvin L. Robins, Albuquerque, for appellant. B.G. Johnson, R.G. Cooper, Albuquerque, for appellee. George L. Reese, Jr., Carlsbad, amicus curiae. McGHEE, Justice. This appeal is from a judgment based upon what is commonly referred to as the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51-60. The appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the District Court of Bernalillo County was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the case because of the provisions of Chapter 43, Laws of 1947 (§ 16-1-7 N.M.S.A., 1953), as follows: The movant in its last statement of its position, in answer to an amicus curiae brief, states that the fundamental legal questions involved are: The movant contends affirmative answers should be given to the first and third questions and a negative one to the second proposition. In support of the first question the movant asserts that while a FELA case may be filed at the election of a plaintiff in either the state or federal courts, there is no right of removal on the part of the railroad to the federal courts, and that *1109 thereby the jurisdiction of the federal court is limited and curtailed. The clear answer to this question, under the authorities construing the amendment denying the right of removal, is that such presents a matter of venue and not one of jurisdiction; that the case could be filed in the federal court, assuming the requisite amount of money was involved, and there would be complete jurisdiction in the federal court to determine the case. Carpenter v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 6 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 375. The first contention is not well taken. Proposition two omits a very material fact. For a yes or no answer there should be included at the proper place in effect the following: We will dispose of questions two and three together. New Mexico has the Federal Employers' Liability Act set out in its constitution in Article XX, § 16 and Article XXII, § 2 where the federal act and all amendments thereto until otherwise provided by law are adopted. These provisions create a cause of action against a common carrier railroad for an injury or death while engaged in intrastate commerce and read as follows: Article II, § 1 reads: The courts of New Mexico have entertained all FELA cases filed in them since statehood, and the attack made here is the first time the jurisdiction of such cases has been challenged. Our courts have heard and determined tort cases of all kinds and there is nothing in our public policy which prohibits such jurisdiction. In such a situation under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI, the United States Supreme Court as well as the courts of Illinois and California have held the state courts may not refuse to hear and determine a claim arising under federal law. Article VI reads in part: Perhaps the most direct holding of the Federal Supreme Court on this Article is that of Testa v. Katt, 1947, 330 U.S. 386, 67 S. Ct. 810, 814, 91 L. Ed. 967. There the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 71 R.I. 472, 47 A.2d 312, held that the Rhode Island courts need not assume jurisdiction of an action brought to recover overcharges under Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925 (e), for the reason that the Act was penal in its nature. After quoting Article VI the court discusses a number of its previous holdings, stating: It is interesting to note there is but one short syllabus in the Lawyers Edition: All of the arguments of the movants are answered and disposed of contrary to its contention in Miller v. Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles, 1943, 22 Cal. 2d 818, 142 P.2d 297, 316. There the court reviewed all of the pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States up to its date of 1943, and plainly held that a state court having jurisdiction to enforce rights similar to those created by an act of congress had the mandatory duty to assume jurisdiction over the federally created rights. Answering a claim of hardship similar to the one here, because of the additional burden that would result from the state enforcing federal rights in its courts, the California court stated: In addition to the above authorities the reader is referred to the following cases: McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., 1934, 292 U.S. 230, 54 S. Ct. 690, 78 L. Ed. 1227; McCarroll v. Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters, 1957, 49 Cal. 2d 45, 315 P.2d 322; Mondou v. New York, N.H. & H. Ry. Co., 1912, 233 U.S. 1, 32 S. Ct. 169, 56 L. Ed. 327, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 44; Claflin v. Houseman, 1876, 93 U.S. 130, 23 L. Ed. 833; 222 East Chestnut St. Corp. v. Berger, 1954, 3 Ill. 2d 32, 119 N.E.2d 757; Teeval Co. v. Stern, 1950, 301 N.Y. 346, 93 N.E.2d 884; and Allendorf v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co., 1956, 8 Ill. 2d 164, 133 N.E.2d 288, 290. In the last case it was stated: The supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution is as binding on the legislature of a state as it is on its courts and it requires the courts of New Mexico to hear this case. We are bound to follow the decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting Federal Constitutional provisions. Silva v. Crombie, 1935, 39 N.M. 240, 44 P.2d 719. If we give the effect contended for to the 1947 Act here in question and a New Mexico citizen is injured while working for a railroad carrier while engaged in interstate commerce the courts of New Mexico would be closed to him. True, if his claim amounted to ten thousand dollars or more the federal court would be open to him, but if he desired to try his case in a state court he would have to go to some other jurisdiction. Not even the federal court would hear his case if his claim was for less than ten thousand dollars. We had three of these cases here where motions were filed raising the same questions as here. Briefs were filed by the attorneys in the cases as well as some briefs by amici curiae but who were actually pecuniarily interested in the result. At the invitation of this Court, Honorable George L. Reese of Carlsbad filed a very able brief as amicus curiae, and for which we express our thanks. The motion is without merit and it is denied. *1112 A decision on the merits in this case will follow in due course. And it is so ordered. LUJAN, C.J., and SADLER, COMPTON and SHILLINGLAW, JJ., concur.