El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1897-04-20
VOL. XVII. NO. g
AN IMPORTANT OPINION
From the q. s Circuit Court of Appeals on
Sung for Ininries Received a Mexico


Suing for Ininries Received 10 Mexico
An opinion was rendered by the
United Circuit Court of Appeals at New
Orleans, on the 18th inst ant, which is
recognized by the bar generally as of
great importance, and of particular in
terest and Importance to the attorneys
of Western and Southern Texas. 1t
was rendered in the case of Edward
| Evey, plaintiff in error, against the
Mexican Central Railway company,
Limiled defendant in error. The case
involved the question of the right of
an employee, being a citizen of the
| United States, to sue for injuries re-
ceived in the republic of Mexico,
through the negligence of a railway
corporation doing business in that re-
| public, but ipcO porate1 in the United
States. The opinion of the supreme
court of Texas, in the case of the Ma
| t1onal Railway company against jack
son, is reviewed, and the federal court
| at New Orleans takes issue with our
supreme court upon every proposition
asserted by it, and holds that the
federal courts have and will entertain
jurisdiction in such cases. The fol-
lowing language is used in the opinion
referred to:
''While the act of negligence COM
planned of was committed in the re-
public of Mexico, neither of the par
ties is a citizen of Mexico, but both
are citizens of the United States, and
therefore there ought to be no ques-
tiCn of international comfy in the
case, further than to enquire whether
the laws o. Mexico give right to the
plaintiff to recover damages for such
negligence, AMI the extent of such
right. The laws of the republic of
Mexico create a civil liability in favor
of the person injured by negligence,
Il Jiati, ,ir-ir Il
for in the nature of pecuniary damages;
70 the same effect are the laws of Tex
as. A right arising under, or a 1ia-
bility imposed by, either the com mon
law or the statute of state may, where
the action is transitory, be asserted
and enforced in any circuit court of the
United States having Jurisdiction of
the subject, matter and parties"
The court proceeds to say that the
laws of Mexico are peculiarly clear
and plain in defining negligence and
the civil rights resulting therefrom.
That the objection that plaintiff should
show a reason, before being allowed to
sue in the courts of this country, why
he had not brought his action in the
republic of Mexico, is one to which the
attention of court was never before
called and has no precedent to support
it; that the judgment OF the trial court
iu the premises would be final deter
mination of the rights of the parties;
that the court is not asked in this
connection to enforce any penal law of
the republic of Mexico, but merely to
enforce the civil right of the plaintiff
granted by the laws of Me xico, oc-
'asioued by an act IF negligence such
as gives a right of action under the
aw in any civilized country: that the
fact that the defendant is sued in a
forum where extraordinary damages
such as are allowed by the law of
Mexico cannot be recovered, is mat
ter for which it ought to thank heaven
and not complain.
The plain in error, Mr.. Evey. in
\ hose favor the case was reversed was
in the appellate court by
Judge w. B. Brack and Millard Pat
,ersOn of this CITY,