New-York tribune., 1909-07-21
EMPLOYERS LAW FAILS
STATUS IN STATE COURTS.
Supreme Court of
Errors Decides against Statute.

New Haven, July 2O-The Connecticut Su-
preme Court Of Errors this afternoon handed
down decision in favor OF the New York. New
Haven & Hartford Railroad In the actions OF
William H. Hoxie and Edgar G. MondOu. for
damages, finding error. In effect this means
that the court. by unanimous opinion. declares
the employers liability act, passed by Congress
April 30. 1908. cannot be enforced in the
state courts
In the Hoxie case after the railroad as de-
fendant in the Superior Court had set up the
plea that the act in question was unconstitu-
tional in the parallel case Of Mondou. who also
railroad brakeman injured while coupling
cars. the federal government interviewed the
Department Of Justice being represented by
special attorney. The arguments were made at
Hartford last month.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice
Baldwin. The case was action for damages
brought by William H. Hoxie. a train hand. for
injuries received on the railroad OF the de-
fendant corporation at Auburn. Mass The
complaint alleged that while coupling cars the
PLAINTIFF hurt. due TO the negligence Of g.
fellow servant in control Of another train run
ming between Hartford and Worcester. He
based hfe claim the federal act relating to
the liability of common carriers engaged in
commerce between states. demurrer 10 the
complaint was sustained and Judgment rem
dered for the defendant. The decision upholds
Judge Ralph Wheeler. Of the Superior Court,
who had declared unconstitutional the act in
question in the Mondou case. In his opinion
Chief Justice Baldwin says:
The act Of Congress now in question creates
a statutory right of action II is one not exist
ing In common law nor in chancery. Il is one
which. if warranted by the Constitution Of the
United States, may, under their general laws
relative the Jurisdiction OF the circuit courts
of the United States. whenever damages exceed
ing $4,000 are claimed, be made the subject OF
judicial proceedings in the courts of the United
States as a suit of a civil nature arising under
the laws of the United States. without reference
to the citizenship Of the parties
Two questions present themselves at the
threshold Of the present case The first is wheth-
or Congress intended by this act TO authorize the
institution of an action under II in the courts
OF the state. The second is whether. if such
were its intentions II had power TO make II
incumbent on the state courts 10 assume Juris-
diCtion.
At common law a servant cannot recover from
his master for injuries received from the negh-
cence Of a fellow servant acting in the same
line Of employment. Congress has now seen ft
TO give an action where the common law de-
MED il.
Chief Justice Baldwin then goes into the law
on the question Of damages. as laid down by
various courts Of Jurisdiction. including the
Supreme Court Of the United States, and says
First-Congress did not intend by the act Of
April % 1908. TO authorize the institution OF an
action under il in the courts of the states
Second-It had no power TO make il inCum-
bent on the state courts to assume Jurisdiction
Of such action
voved the consideration Of these points Which
justified OF themselves the dismissal OF the
plaintiffs action. but further
Fourth-The act. so far as 1t concerns TINS
cause is wholly void by reason of certain or It's
provisions. which cannot he separated from
the rest.