Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of William J. Burns, Respondent, v. Southern Pacific Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-07-13
Citations: 215 N.Y. 738
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of William J. Burns, Respondent, v. Southern Pacific Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 215
Pages: 738–739

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of William J. Burns, Respondent, v. Southern Pacific Company, Appellant.
(Argued June 15, 1915;
decided July 13, 1915.)
Matter of Burns v. Southern Pacific Co., 167 App. Div. 945, affirmed.
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered March 22, 1915, which affirmed an award of the State Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
At the hearing objection was made to the making of an award on the ground that the act does not apply because the injured man was engaged in interstate commerce in the employ of a foreign corporation of the state of Kentucky which was engaged solely in interstate commerce; the injury was one with respect to which Congress may establish and by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act has established a rule of liability, and under the language of section 114 of the State Workmen’s Compensation Law that act has no application; on the ground that the act includes only those engaged in the operation of vessels other than those of other states and countries in foreign and interstate commerce, while Burns was engaged in operation of a vessel of another state engaged in interstate commerce and hence does not come within the provisions of the act; further, that the act is unconstitutional in that it constitutes a regulation of commerce among the several states in violation of article 1, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States; in that it takes property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution; in that it denies the Southern Pacific Company the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, because the act does not afford an exclusive remedy; also, that the act is unconstitutional in that it violates article 3, section 2, of the Constitution.
Norman B. Beecher and Bay Rood Allen for appellant.
EgburtE. Woodbury, Attorney-General (E. O. Aiken of counsel) for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, on authority of Matter of Jensen (215 N. Y. 514); no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Collin, Cuddebaok, Miller, Cardozo and Seabury, JJ. Not sitting: Werner, J.