The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1903-03-20
SCHUMPERT CASE DECIDED.
Supreme Court AffirmS Judgment Below
4. III Case Of j. C. Schumpert VS..
Southern, Verdict for $4,000.

JuuS1lleil VI llc lo"Si CouIC III Vic
case of James C. Schumpert, respon-
dent, VS.. the Southern Railway Com
pany and John Hutchinson, appellants.
The case was carried from this county,
where at the March term of the court
last year Mr.. Schumpert, who lives
near Prosperity, was awarded verdict
of $4,000.
This decision by the supreme court
means a great deal in future litigation
against railroad companies in this
State, and especially against the
Southern Railway Company, in that it
has established that where an employe
resident of this State is sued in con-
nection with the defendant railway
company, the suit can not be carried
into the federal courts, although the
amount sued for m y be over $4,000.
This was an action brought for $50
600 damages on account of personal in
juries sustained by Mr.. Schumpert as an
engineer of the Southern Railway Com
pany in collision at Bolton, S. c., on
February Is, 1901. He sued the company
on the Sd day of June, 1901, and in his COM
plant he joined as a party defendant
John lIutchison, who was the engineer
on the Anderson Branch train, with
which Mr.. Schumpert collided. The
case was tried before Judge Ernest
Gary at the March term of the court,
1902, and a verdict for $12,500 was
rendered, which was cut down by the
Judge to $4,000. An appeal was taken
thereafter to the supreme court and
was heard at the November term, 1903.
The court filed its opinion on the 18th
day of March, 1908, affil ming the
Judgment below, which wins the case
for Mr.. Schumpelt. Mr.. Schumpert
was represented by Messrs Johnstone
&sWelch. So much for the facts of
the case.
In the case is involved a question of
procedure which is of very far reach
. ing consequence in railway litigation
against the Southern Railway Company
I especially, in that the Southern Rail-
sway Company, being a corporation of the
y State of Virginia, il. has heretofore al
ways exercised the right which it is
given under the Act of ongress to re-
move any suit against it from the State
court to the federal count in case the
amount in controversy is over $4,000.
The Constitution of 1895 undertook to
domesticate foreign corporations doing
IL. l.
of forcing them to submit to the State S
jurisdiction in all litigations affecting
them, and for other purposes as we'll.
In 1896 the Legislature passed an Act
carrying out the spirit of the Consttu-
tion wherein it was attempted to do
mesticate all foreign railroad corpor-
ations doing business in this State.
The Southern Railway Company under
this Act took out a domestic charter.
Thereafter it was sued in the State
court is the case of Mathis VS.. the
Southern Railway Company, and as the
amount in controversy was over $2, 900,
it endeavored to remove it's controversy
to the federal courts.~ The supreme
court is that case sustained the consti-
tutionality Of the Act of 1885, and held
that the Southern Railway was not en-
titled to remove it's cause to the federal
courts. Thereafter the supreme court
of the State in the case of Calvert vs..
the Southel II Railway and Wilson vs..
the Southern Railway Company re-
versed it's decision in Mathis VS.. South
crn and held that the Act of 1896 was
the last two cases was divided equally
the court en- banc was called upon to
= decide whether or not the Act Of 1896
was constitutional. 1t was decided that
the Act Of 1896 was unconstitutional
This left the Southern Railway Com
! pany in position still to remove its
cases to the federal courts.
5. In this case, the Schumpert case, the
8&railway company and one Of its servants
are joined parties defendant, the COM
plant charging that they jointly caused
& the injury to Mr.. Schumpert. 1t was
contcnded throughout the case that
& whereas Mr.. Hutchison was a resident
y of the State and the Southern Railway
Company resident Of Virginia, that the
Southern Railway Company would have
submit to the jurisdiction of the State
courts if their act in causing the dam
age to Mr.. Schumpert was a joint act
of both. This proposition wos stenu-
ously resisted by the railway company
and was fought hard all along the line.
1t has been carried before Judge Simon
ton in Charleston in the case of Riser vs..
the Southern Railway Company, a case
also from Newberry county and in
which Mr.. Riser is represented by
Messrs. Johnstone q Wclch, wherein
Judge Simonton held that the act OF
a servant in causing the injury like the
one in this case amounted in law
to a joint act of himself and his en-,
ployer, the railroad company, and that
this being true, the railroad company
had no right to remove it's controversy
into the federal court, and he, there