Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/174/96/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:45:27+00:00

Document:
"in all actions commenced under this act, if the plaintiff shall recover, there shall be allowed him by the court a reasonable attorney's fee, which shall become a part of the judgment,"
must, for reasons stated in the opinion of the court, be sustained as legislation authorized by the Constitution of the United States.
"An act relating to the liability of railroads for damages by fire."
"Section 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Kansas: That in all actions against any railway company organized or doing business in this state for damages by fire caused by the operating of said railroad, it shall be only necessary for the plaintiff in said action to establish the fact that said fire complained of was caused by the operating of said railroad, and the amount of his damages (which proof shall be prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of said railroad): Provided, that in estimating the damages under this act, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall be taken into consideration."
"SEC. 2. In all actions commenced under this act, if the plaintiff shall recover, there shall be allowed him by the court a reasonable attorney's fee, which shall become a part of the judgment."
Sess.Laws 1885, p. 258, c. 155.
Under it, an action was brought in the District Court of Cloud County which resulted in a judgment against the railroad company, plaintiff in error, for $2,094 damages and $225 attorney's fees. This judgment having been affirmed by the supreme court of the state, the company brought the case here on error.
amount $50, for personal services rendered or labor done, or for damages, or for overcharges on freight, or for stock killed or injured, was adjudged unconstitutional. It was held to be simply a statute imposing a penalty on railroad corporations for failing to pay certain debts, and not one to enforce compliance with any police regulations. It was so regarded by the supreme court of the state, and its construction was accepted in this Court as correct. While the right to classify was conceded, it was said that such classification must be based upon some difference bearing a reasonable and just relation to the act in respect to which the classification is attempted; that no mere arbitrary selection can ever be justified by calling it classification. And there is no good reason why railroad corporations alone should be punished for not paying their debts. Compelling the payment of debts is not a police regulation. We see no reason to change the views then expressed, and if the statute before us were the counterpart of that, we should be content to refer to that case as conclusive.
"see to it that no fire escapes from your locomotives, for if it does, you will be liable not merely for the damage it causes, but also for the reasonable attorney's fees of the owner of the property injured or destroyed."
"The objection that this legislation is special and unequal cannot be sustained. The dangerous element employed, and the hazards to persons and property arising from the running of trains and the operation of railroads, justifies such a law, and the fact that all persons and corporations brought under its influence are subjected to the same duties and liabilities, under similar circumstances disposes of the objections raised."
"Our statute is somewhat in the nature of a police regulation, designed to enforce care on the part of railroad companies to prevent the communication of fire and the destruction of property along railroad lines. It is not intended merely to impose a burden on railroad corporations that private persons are not required to bear, and the remedy offered is one the legislature has the right to give in such cases. This is the view heretofore held by this court, which we see no reason for changing. Railway Co. v. Snaveley, 47 Kan. 637; Same v. Curtis, 48 Kan. 179; Same v. McMullen, 48 Kan. 281; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Henning, 48 Kan. 465."
upon railroad corporations for a failure to pay certain debts."
"While this action is for stock killed, the recovery of attorney's fees cannot be sustained upon the theory just suggested. There is no fence law in Texas. The legislature of the state has not deemed it necessary for the protection of life or property to require railroads to fence their tracks, and, as no duty is imposed, there can be no penalty for nonperformance. Indeed, the statute does not proceed upon any such theory; it is broader in its scope. Its object is to compel the payment of the several classes of debts named, and was so regarded by the supreme court of the state."
Indeed, the limit in amount ($50) found in that statute made it clear that no police regulation was intended, for if it were, the more stock found on the track, the greater would be the danger and the more imperative the need of regulation and penalty.
So that, according to the interpretation placed upon the Texas statute by its supreme court, its purpose was generally to compel the payment of small debts, and the fact that among the debts so provided for was the liability for stock killed was not sufficient to justify us in separating the statute into fragments and upholding one part on a theory inconsistent with the policy of the state while, on the other hand, the purpose of this statute is, as declared by the Supreme Court of Kansas, protection against fire -- a matter in the nature of a police regulation.
course, leaning to any interpretation which has been placed upon it by the highest court of the state. We have referred to the interpretation placed upon the respective statutes of Texas and Kansas by their highest courts not as conclusive, but as an interpretation towards which we ought to lean, and which in fact commends itself to our judgment.
"If any person shall set on fire any woods, marshes or prairies so as thereby to occasion any damage to any other person, such person shall make satisfaction for such damage to the party injured, to be recovered in an action."
not rightfully be held that the proximate cause of the injury was the escape of fire from the locomotive. No other work done, or industry carried on, carries with it so much of danger from escaping fire.
In 1887, the Legislature of the State of Missouri felt constrained to pass an act making every railroad corporation responsible in damages for all property destroyed by fire communicated directly or indirectly from its engines, and giving the corporation an insurable interest in the property along its road. This statute was, after a full examination of all the authorities, held by this Court a valid exercise of the legislative power. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway v. Mathews, 165 U. S. 1. So when the Legislature of Kansas made a classification, and included in one class all corporations engaged in this business of peculiar hazard, it did so upon a difference having a reasonable relation to the object sought to be accomplished, to-wit, the securing of protection of property from damage or destruction by fire.
perform. We may think it better that the legislation should be like that of Missouri, prescribing an absolute liability, instead of that of Kansas, making the fact of fire prima facie evidence of negligence. But clearly, as a Court, we may not interpose our personal views as to the wisdom or policy of either form of legislation. It cannot be too often said that forms are matters of legislative consideration; results and power only are to be considered by the courts.
streets, opening parks, and many other objects. Regulations for these purposes may press with more or less weight upon one than upon another, but they are designed not to impose unequal or unnecessary restrictions upon anyone, but to promote, with as little inconvenience as possible, the general good. Though in many respects necessarily special in their character, they do not furnish just ground of complaint if they operate alike upon all persons and property under the same circumstances and conditions. Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited, but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment."
This declaration has, in various language, been often repeated, and the power of classification upheld, whenever such classification proceeds upon any difference which has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be accomplished. It is also clear that the legislature (which has power in advance to determine what rights, privileges, and duties it will give to, and impose upon, a corporation which it is creating) has, under the generally reserved right to alter, amend, or repeal the charter, power to impose new duties and new liabilities upon such artificial entities of its creation. St. Louis &c. Railway Company v. Paul, 173 U. S. 404. It is also a maxim of constitutional law that a legislature is presumed to have acted within constitutional limits, upon full knowledge of the facts, and with the purpose of promoting the interests of the people as a whole, and courts will not lightly hold that an act duly passed by the legislature was one in the enactment of which it has transcended its power. On the other hand, it is also true that the equal protection guarantied by the Constitution forbids the legislature to select a person, natural or artificial, and impose upon him or it burdens and liabilities which are not cast upon others similarly situated. It cannot pick out one individual or one corporation and enact that whenever he or it is sued, the judgment shall be for double damages, or subject to an attorney's fee in favor of the plaintiff, when no other individual or corporation is subjected to the same rule.
Neither can it make a classification of individuals or corporations which is purely arbitrary, and impose upon such class special burdens and liabilities. Even where the selection is not obviously unreasonable and arbitrary, if the discrimination is based upon matters which have no relation to the object sought to be accomplished, the same conclusion of unconstitutionality is affirmed. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra, forcibly illustrates this. In that case, a municipal ordinance of San Francisco designed to prevent the Chinese from carrying on the laundry business was adjudged void. This Court looked beyond the mere letter of the ordinance to the condition of things as they existed in San Francisco, and saw that, under the guise of regulation, an arbitrary classification was intended and accomplished.
Court was unanimous; in others it was divided, but the division in all of them was not upon the principle or rule of separation, but upon the location of the particular case one side or the other of the dividing line.
It is the essence of a classification that upon the class are cast duties and burdens different from those resting upon the general public. Thus, when the legislature imposes on railroad corporations a double liability for stock killed by passing trains, it says in effect that if suit be brought against a railroad company for stock killed by one of its trains, it must enter into the courts under conditions different from those resting on ordinary suitors. If it is beaten in the suit, it must pay not only the damage which it has done, but twice that amount. If it succeeds, it recovers nothing. On the other hand, if it should sue an individual for destruction of its livestock, it could under no circumstances recover any more than the value of that stock. So that it may be said that, in matter of liability in case of litigation, it is not placed on an equality with other corporations and individuals; yet this Court has unanimously said that this differentiation of liability, this inequality of right in the courts, is of no significance upon the question of constitutionality. Indeed the very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE BROWN, MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, and MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, dissenting.
"was caused by the operating of said railroad, and the amount of his damages (which proof shall be prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of said railroad): Provided, that in estimating the damages under this act, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall be taken into consideration."
The second and only other section provides that "if the plaintiff shall recover, there shall be allowed him by the court a reasonable attorney's fee, which shall become a part of the judgment."
Manifestly the statute applies only to suits against railroad companies, and only to causes of action arising from fire caused by operating a railroad. It establishes against a defendant railroad company a rule of evidence as to negligence that does not apply in any other suit for damages arising from the negligence of a defendant, whether a corporate or natural person. It does more. It imposes upon the defendant railroad corporation, if unsuccessful in its defense, a burden not imposed upon any other unsuccessful defendant sued upon a like or upon a different cause of action. That burden is the payment of an attorney's fee as a part of the judgment. Even if it appears that the railway company was not guilty of any negligence whatever, or that the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence preventing any recovery in their favor, no such fee nor any sum beyond ordinary costs is taxed against them.
by his affidavit, for payment to such corporation by filing it with any station agent of such corporation in any county where suit may be instituted for the same, and if at the expiration of thirty days after such presentation, such claim has not been paid or satisfied, he may immediately institute suit thereon in the proper court, and if he shall finally establish his claim, and obtain judgment for the full amount thereof, as presented for payment to such corporation in such court, or any court to which the suit may have been appealed, he shall be entitled to recover the amount of such claim and all costs of suit, and in addition thereto all reasonable attorney's fees, provided he has an attorney employed in his case, not to exceed $10, to be assessed and awarded by the court or jury trying the issue."
The question to be decided was whether, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and in the cases specified, the Texas statute did not deny to a railroad corporation the equal protection of the laws in that it required the corporation, if unsuccessful in the suit, to pay, in addition to the ordinary costs taxable in favor of a successful litigant, a special attorney's fee, but gave it no right, if successful, to demand a like fee from its adversary.
if it terminates in their favor, they recover no attorney's fees. It is no sufficient answer to say that they are punished only when adjudged to be in the wrong. They do not enter the courts upon equal terms. They must pay attorney's fees if wrong, they do not recover any if right; while their adversaries recover if right, and pay nothing if wrong. In the suits, therefore, to which they are parties, they are discriminated against, and are not treated as others. They do not stand equal before the law. They do not receive its equal protection. All this is obvious from a mere inspection of the statute."
"The rights and securities guarantied to persons by that instrument cannot be disregarded in respect to these artificial entities called 'corporations' any more than they can be in respect to the individuals who are the equitable owners of the property belonging to such corporations. A state has no more power to deny to corporations the equal protection of the law than it has to individual citizens."
kindred cases proceed upon the theory of a special duty resting upon railroad corporations by reason of the business in which they are engaged -- a duty not resting upon others; a duty which can be enforced by the legislature in any proper manner, and whether it enforces it by penalties in the way of fines coming to the state, or by double damages to a party injured, is immaterial. It is all done in the exercise of the police power of the state, and with a view to enforce just and reasonable police regulations. While this action is for stock killed, the recovery of attorney's fees cannot be sustained upon the theory just suggested. There is no fence law in Texas. The legislature of the state has not deemed it necessary for the protection of life or property to require railroads to fence their tracks, and, as no duty is imposed, there can be no penalty for nonperformance. Indeed, the statute does not proceed upon any such theory. It is broader in its scope. Its object is to compel the payment of the several classes of debts named, and was so regarded by the supreme court of the state."
"Neither can it be sustained as a proper means of enforcing the payment of small debts, and preventing any unnecessary litigation in respect to them, because it does not impose the penalty in all cases where the amount in controversy is within the limit named in the statute. Indeed, the statute arbitrarily singles out one class of debtors and punishes it for a failure to perform certain duties -- duties which are equally obligatory upon all debtors; a punishment not visited by reason of the failure to comply with any proper police regulations, or for the protection of the laboring classes, or to prevent litigation about trifling matters, or in consequence of any special corporate privileges bestowed by the state. Unless the legislature may arbitrarily select one corporation or one class of corporations, one individual or one class of individuals, and visit a penalty upon them which is not imposed upon others guilty of like delinquency, this statute cannot be sustained. But arbitrary selection can never be justified by calling it 'classification.' The equal protection demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment forbids this. "
Having assented in the Ellis case to the first proposition, I cannot give my assent to the suggestion that the second proposition is consistent with the principles there laid down. Placing the present case beside the former case, I am not astute enough to perceive that the Kansas statute is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment if the Texas statute be unconstitutional.
suits embraced by its provisions are not permitted to enter the courts upon equal terms, and although the defendant railroad corporation is not allowed to recover an attorney's fee if right, but must pay one if found to be wrong in its defense, while the plaintiff is exempt from that burden if found to be wrong.
In the former case, it was held that, as the killing of the colt was not attributable to a failure upon the part of the railroad to perform any duty imposed upon it by statute, there could be no penalty for nonperformance. In the present case, it is adjudged that the statute may impose a penalty upon the defendant corporation for nonperformance, although the negligence imputed to it was not in violation of any statutory duty.
case that "a state has no more power to deny to corporations the equal protection of the laws than it has to individual citizens," and that corporations are denied a right secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment if "they cannot appeal to the courts as other litigants under like conditions and with like protection."
"If you are sued by a railroad corporation for damage done to its property by fire caused by your negligence or in the use of your property, the recovery against you shall not exceed the damages proved and the ordinary costs of suit. But if your property is destroyed by fire caused by the operation of the railroad belonging to the same corporation, and you succeed in an action brought to recover damages, you may recover, in addition to the damages proved and the ordinary costs of suit, a reasonable attorney's fee, and, if you fail in the action, no such attorney's fee shall be taxed against you."
In my judgment, such discrimination against a litigant is not consistent with the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.
I submit that any other conclusion is inconsistent with Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway v. Ellis, as well as with many other well considered decisions. A reference to a few adjudged cases will suffice.
attorney's fee of $25 as costs cannot be upheld. The legislature cannot make unjust distinctions between classes of suitors without violating the spirit of the Constitution. Corporations have equal rights with natural persons as far as their privileges in the courts are concerned. They can sue and defend in all courts the same as natural persons, and the law must be administered as to them with the same equality and justice which it bestows upon every suitor, and without which the machinery of the law becomes the engine of tyranny. This statute proposes to punish a railroad company for defending a suit brought against it with a penalty of $25 if it fails to successfully maintain its defense. The individual sues for the loss of his cow, and if it is shown that such loss was occasioned by his own neglect, and through no fault of the company, and he thereby loses his suit, the railroad company can recover only the ordinary statutory costs of $10 in justice's court, but if he succeeds because of the negligence of the company, the plaintiff is permitted to tax the $10 and an additional penalty of $25, for it is nothing more or less than a penalty. Calling it an 'attorney's fee' does not change its real nature or effect. It is a punishment to the company, and a reward to the plaintiff, and an incentive to litigation on his part. This inequality and injustice cannot be sustained upon any principle known to the law. It is repugnant to our form of government and out of harmony with the genius of our free institutions. The legislature cannot give to one party in litigation such privileges as will arm him with special and important pecuniary advantages over his antagonist."
"The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our state government amounts to a prohibition of such acts of legislation, and the general principles of law and reason forbid them."
when suits are brought against them."
These principles were reaffirmed in Lafferty v. Chicago & W. Michigan Railway, 71 Mich. 35, and Grand Rapids Chair Co. v. Runnels, 77 Mich. 104, 111.
which would require all farmers who raise cotton to pay such a fee, in cases where cotton was the subject matter of litigation and the owners of this staple were parties to the suit, would be so discriminating in its nature as to appear manifestly unconstitutional, and one which should confine the tax alone to physicians or merchants or ministers of the gospel would be glaring in its obnoxious repugnancy to those cardinal principles of free government which are found incorporated, perhaps, in the bill of rights of every state constitution of the various commonwealths of the American government. We think this section of the code is antagonistic to these provisions of the state constitution, and is void. Durkee v. Janesville, 28 Wis. 464; Gordon v. Winchester Association, 12 Bush 110; Greene v. Briggs, 1 Curtis 327; Cooley's Const.Lim. (3d ed.) § 393. The section in question is also violative of that clause in Section I, Article XIV, of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' This guaranty was said by Justice Bradley in Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 101 U. S. 30, to include 'the equal right to resort to the appropriate courts for redress.' 'It means,' as was further said by the Court,"
"that no person or class of persons should be denied the same protection which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and under like circumstances."
"The same Court, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 92 U. S. 555, per Waite, C.J., used the following language in discussing the foregoing constitutional clause:"
"The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle, if within its power. That duty was originally assumed by the states, and it still remains there."
"Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36."
not in excess of $5, for his attorney, but no such attorney fee shall be taxed in the costs unless said wages shall have been demanded in writing, and not paid within three days after such demand; if the defendant appeal from any such judgment, and the plaintiff on appeal recover a like sum exclusive of interest from the rendition of the judgment before the justice, there shall be included in his costs such additional fee not in excess of $15 for his attorney as the court may allow."
"Under the statute, to entitle the plaintiff to have an attorney's fee taxed against the defendant, he is not required to show that the debtor had funds which he willfully or arbitrarily, or even carelessly, refused to apply to pay his debt, nor that a vexatious or dilatory defense had been made to defeat or delay the judgment. No other misconduct by the defendant is required than such as may be implied from a failure to comply with the peremptory written demand made upon him. Whether the debtor interposes or shows a vexatious defense, whether he makes an honest though unsuccessful one, or whether he makes none at all, but instead suffers judgment to be taken against him by default, are all equally immaterial. In either case, the statute denounces against him a penalty called an 'attorney's fee' if an action is brought on the claim, and judgment recovered for the sum demanded. . . . The right to protect property is declared as well as that justice shall not be denied and every one entitled to equal protection. Judicial tribunals are provided for the equal protection of every suitor. The right to retain property already in possession is as sacred as the right to recover it when dispossessed. The right to defend against an action to recover money is as necessary as the right to defend one brought to recover specific real or personal property. An adverse result, in either case, deprives the defeated party of property."
one citizen or class of citizens only denies to him or them the equal protection of the law."
"whenever an appeal shall be taken from the judgment of any court in any action for damages brought by any citizen of this state against any corporation,"
often, that the citizen plaintiff is an appellant, and in such cases the discrimination may operate oppressively on him. The Supreme Court of Alabama declared its act violative of the constitution of that state and of the United States because of its unjust discrimination in establishing peculiar rules for a particular occupation -- i.e. 'such as own or control railroads.' Our objection to the act under consideration is broader, as shown above, embracing in its scope the right of the citizen who sues a corporation, for whom we assert the right to appeal on the same terms granted to the plaintiffs in like cases -- i.e. actions for damages, against whomsoever brought. The act was intended to deter from the appellate court corporations against whom judgments should be rendered for damages, or citizens of this state suing them for damages. It was conceived in hostility to citizens as plaintiffs or corporations as defendants in such actions. In either view, it is partial and discriminating against classes of litigants, denying them access to the appellate courts on the same terms and with the same incidents as other litigants who may be plaintiffs or defendants in actions for damages. It is not applicable to all suitors alike in the class of actions mentioned by it. . . . An act"
"which is partial in its operations, intended to affect particular individuals alone or to deprive them of the benefit of the general laws, is unwarranted by the constitution and is void. . . . A partial law, tending directly or indirectly to deprive a corporation or an individual of rights to property, or to the equal benefits of the general laws of the land, is unconstitutional and void."
v. Menominee Bay Shore Lumber Co. (Michigan), 71 N.W. 449; San Antonio & A. P. Railway v. Wilson (Texas), 19 SW. 910; Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288; Pearson v. Portland, 69 Me. 278; Burrows v. Brooks (Michigan), 71 N.W. 460; Middleton v. Middleton, 54 N.J.Eq. 692; State v. Goodwill, 33 W.Va. 179. These adjudications rest substantially upon the grounds indicated by this Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 118 U. S. 369, where it was said that "the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."
I do not think that the adjudged cases in this Court to which reference has been made sustain the validity of the statute of Kansas.
in many cases double, in some cases treble, and even quadruple, the actual damages. . . . The objection that the statute of Missouri violates the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws is as untenable as that which we have considered. The statute makes no discrimination against any railroad company in its requirements. Each company is subject to the same liability, and from each the same security, by the erection of fences, gates, and cattle guards, is exacted when its road passes through, along, or adjoining enclosed or cultivated fields or unenclosed lands. There is no evasion of the rule of equality where all companies are subjected to the same duties and liabilities under similar circumstances."
"Such legislation does not infringe upon the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requiring equal protection of the laws, because it is special in its character. If in conflict at all with that clause, it must be on other grounds. And when legislation applies to particular bodies or associations, imposing upon them additional liabilities, it is not open to the objection that it denies to them the equal protection of the laws if all persons brought under its influence are treated alike, under the same conditions."
required of railroad corporations or companies by their charters does not create any limitation upon the state against imposing all such further duties as may be deemed essential or important for the safety of the public, the security of passengers and employees, or the protection of the property of adjoining owners. The imposing of proper penalties for the enforcement of such additional duties is unquestionably within the police powers of the states. No contract with any person, individual or corporate, can impose restrictions upon the power of the states in this respect."
Observe that the Missouri statute gave the railroad company, for its protection against the new liability imposed upon it, the right to insure the property likely to be destroyed by fire.
"arbitrarily select one corporation or one class of corporations, one individual or one class of individuals, and visit a penalty upon them which is not imposed upon others guilty of like delinquency."
neglect by the railroad company of duties specifically enjoined upon it, the state attempts -- and by the decision just rendered is enabled -- to take from the company the right which we declared in the Ellis case was secured by the constitution -- namely, the right to "appeal to the courts as other litigants, under like conditions, and with like protection."
"If you enter here for the purpose of defending the suit brought against you, it must be subject to the condition that a special attorney's fee shall be taxed against you if unsuccessful, while none shall be taxed against the plaintiff if he be unsuccessful?"
Nothing has ever heretofore fallen from this Court sustaining the proposition that the constitutional pledge of the equal protection of the laws admitted of a litigant, because of its corporate character, being denied in a court of justice privileges of a substantial kind accorded to its opponent. If there is one place under our system of government where all should be in a position to have equal and exact justice done to them, it is a court of justice -- a principle which I had supposed was as old as Magna Charta.
of law applicable to all alike, that equality of right given by the law of the land to all suitors, and consequently it should be adjudged to deny the equal protection of the laws. I dissent from the opinion and judgment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 393
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.