The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-15
USING THE SAME TRACKS.
This Decision Relates to the Liza
bilfty of Railroads.


A decision of considerable Importance to
railroad companies and their employees was
handed down yesterday in the appeal OF the
Wisconsin Central receivers that were from
the verdict against them jointly with the
Chicago Great Western company. The case
involved something of a tangle, both COM
panies using the same tracks. The employees
OF the lessee company, therefore, were under
double set of rules those established by
their employers and those fixed by the own
ers of the track over which they were oPer-
ating. The relative force of the rules or
the company, as compared with the general
liability and police regulations to which both
roads were alike subject, are all passed upon
in yesterdays decision the syl .abus in which
| is as follows:
John Smithson, respondent, vs.. Chicago Great
Western Railway company ct al, defend
ants, H. F. Whitcomb and Howard Nor
ris, Receivers of the Wisconsin Central
Company, appellant.
1. When a circuit court of the United
States decides that cause has been fmprop-
erly removed from state court and orders
that such cause be remanded the decision Is
final under the federal statute. No appeal
or writ of error from such a decision is al
lowed.
2. A defendant entitled to have his case
removed from state to federal court or
from the latter to the former, there being
no question of jurisdiction over the subject
matter or over the parties, may waive his
rights to insist upon removal by his acts
or omissions.
g. 1t is held that stipulation entered into
between counsel for appellant and respondent
while the former was In default for want
Of answer settled the controversy as to ap-
pellant's right to have the case tried in the
federal court, and that thereby the place of
trial was fixed in the state court
4. The fact that certain rules promulgated
and put in force for the guidance and gov
eminent Of railway employees while operating
locomotives have been violated may be shown
upon the trial of an action for personal in
turies said to have been caused by such
violation and the fact may be considered as
evidence tending to establish negligence of
the defendant. 56.r
g. But such rules adesnot stand on the same
footing as statute or municipal ordinances
in the nature of police regulations for the
protection of the public or some particular
class of persons: The law, statutory CT
municipal, if valid, fixes the legal standard
Of duty to those for whose protection it was
designed, while private rules may require
either more or less than is required by law.
Compliance with the latter would not neces-
sariiy constitute reasonable care would
the violation thereof necessarily constitute
negligence.
6. On the trial Of an action for personal
injuries alleged to have been receievd by
plaintiff while employed as a locomotive fire.
man by one company through the negligence
another company and in collision, both
companies using the same track. owned by
a third company, the rules promulgated by
the latter for the government of all train
men using the tracks, put in evidence,
together with proof that one or more of these
| rules were being violated by defendants,
appellant, emp-oyes Wnen the colilslon oc-
Cured. The court charged that if the jury
should find from the evidence that the rules
were being violated when the collision took
place they might consider defendants neg
ligence as established. Held that this was
error.
Z. But such an instruction is held to have
been without prejudice, for the reason
that upon the undisputed evidence as to- the
facts and circumstances surrounding the col
lision, the trial court would have been JUS
titled in charging the jury that defendant S
negligence was established as a matter OF
law. Judgment affirmed. Collins, J.