Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

(270 U. S. 580)

MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. et al. v.
PEORIA & P. U. RY. CO.

and averment of infringement seeking injunc- | even to present a bill in the form suggested
tion and damages. His averments, intended by Mr. Justice Bradley.
to constitute a reply to the anticipated de-
fense that the defendant was a licensee, did
not change the nature of his declared choice
of a suit under the patent laws. This, under
the principle now established by the later cas-
es, and especially The Fair v. Kohler Die &
Specialty Co. and Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty
Co. is clear. But the present qualification
of the Hartell Case does not affect the princi-
ple, laid down in Wilson v. Sandford, that
where a patentee complainant makes his suit
one for recovery of royalties under a con-
tract of license or assignment, or for dam-
ages for a breach of its covenants, or for a
specific performance thereof, or asks the aid
of the court in declaring a forfeiture of the
license, or in restoring an unclouded title to
the patent, he does not give the federal Dis-
trict Court jurisdiction of the cause as one
arising under the patent laws. Nor may he

*511

confer it in such a case by *adding to his bill an averment that after the forfeiture shall be declared, or the title to the patent shall be restored, he fears the defendant will infringe, and therefore asks an injunction to prevent it. That was Wilson v. Sandford. If in that case the patentee complainant had based his action on his patent right and had sued for infringement, and by anticipation of a defense of the assignment had alleged a forfeiture by his own declaration without seeking aid of the court, jurisdiction under the patent laws would have attached, and he would have had to meet the claim by the defendant that forfeiture of the license or assignment and restoration of title could not be had except by a decree of a court, which, if sustained, would have defeated his prayer for an injunction on the merits. But when the patentee exercises his choice, and bases his action on the contract, and seeks remedies thereunder, he may not give the case a double aspect, so to speak, and make it a patent case conditioned on his securing equitable relief as to the contract. That is the principle settled by Wilson v. Sandford, and is still the law.

(Argued March 17, 1926. Decided April 12,
1926.)

No. 767.

1. Commerce 88-Order of Interstate Com-
merce Commission to remove discrimination
held rescinded by order dismissing proceed-
ing in which it was entered (Interstate Com-
merce Act, § 15, par. 2 [Comp. St. Supp.
1925, 8583]).

Order of Interstate Commerce Commission
to remove discrimination by its terms and un-
der Interstate Commerce Act, § 15, par. 2,
as amended (Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 8583),
to remain in force until further order of Com-
mission, held rescinded by a later order of the
it was entered, such proceeding having been
Commission, dismissing the proceeding in which
reopened after entry of the order for further
consideration, in connection with other pro-
ceedings to investigate tariff established to re-
move discrimination in compliance with such
order.

2. Commerce

88-Rescinded order of Interstate Commerce Commission held not restored by telegram from chairman of division of Commission stating that order stood unrescinded.

Order of Interstate Commerce Commission,

directing railroad to remove discrimination,
mission, held not restored by telegram from
which was in fact rescinded by action of Com-
chairman of division of Commission, stating or-
der "still stands unrescinded."

3. Commerce 88-Order of Interstate Com-
merce Commission, rescinded by order dis-
missing proceeding in which it was entered,
held not restored by order reopening pro-
ceeding (Interstate Commerce Act, § 16, par.
6 [Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 8584]).

Order of Interstate Commerce Commission,
dis-directing railroad to remove discrimination,
which was rescinded by an order dismissing the
proceeding in which it was entered, held not
proceeding and consolidating it with other pro-
restored by subsequent order reopening such
ceedings, notwithstanding Commission's author-
ity, under Interstate Commerce Act, § 16, par.
6, as amended (Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 8584),
to modify its orders.
4. Commerce

It is true that in Mr. Justice Bradley's
senting opinion, in Hartell v. Tilghman, su-
pra, page 559, he says, in reference to Wilson
v. Sandford, that if the question were a new
one he would think that it would not oust the
jurisdiction under the patent laws for the
complainant to join in a bill for infringement,
as ancillary to the relief sought, an ́applica-
tion to avoid an inequitable license. But no
88-Effect of order of In-
subsequent case has gone so far, and we are terstate Commerce Commission must be de-
not disposed to depart from the rule of Wil- termined by its terms, unless and until modi-
son v. Sandford, whatever might be our con- fied by formal action of Commission.
clusion if it were a new question. Moreover,
Effect of order of Interstate Commerce
Commission
the bill in this case, as we have already ful-
dismissing pending proceeding
ly pointed out, is really not based on threat-until modified by formal action of the Commis-
must be determined by its terms, unless and
ened infringement, but on the contracts, and sion, and cannot be affected by informal dec-
its reference to infringements is inadequate laration of member thereof.

[ocr errors]

(46 S. Ct.)

5. Appeal and error 1106(3)-Courts
39-Jurisdiction is determined as of time suit
is begun, and appeal from decree dismissing
suit for want of jurisdiction will not be re-
manded for filing of supplemental bill be-
cause of matters arising after filing of record
in appellate court.

Jurisdiction of lower court depends

on

facts existing when suit was brought, and appeal from decree dismissing, for want of jurisdiction, suit to enforce compliance with order of Interstate Commerce Commission not in fact in force will not be remanded, with instructions to allow filing of supplemental bill in nature of bill of review, because of matters arising after filing of record in appellate court, nor will court treat record as supplemented by statement of facts of such later occurrences.

fect when this suit was begun, and that, for this reason, it was without jurisdiction over the defendant. The decree entered set aside the service of process and dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction. The case is here on direct appeal under paragraph 4 of section 238 of the Judicial Code, as amended by 938 (Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 1215). The PeAct of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, oria Company concedes that the order was duly entered April 13, 1922. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co., 68 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 412. The Minneapolis & St. Louis concedes that, unless the order was still in force when the bill was filed, the service was a nullity and the court without jurisdiction over the defendants. Compare Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, 45 S. Ct. 621, 268 U. S. 619, 622, 69 L. Ed. 1119; Blumenstock Bros. v. Curtis Publishing Co., 40 S. Ct. 385, 252 U. S. 436, 64 L. Ed. 649. Peo-whether, on the facts to be stated, the order The main question for decision is was in force at the time the bill was filed.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa.

Suit by the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company and others against the ria & Pekin Union Railway Company. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

*581

*Messrs. Donald Evans, of Des Moines, Iowa, and M. M. Joyce, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellants.

Mr. Eugene E. Horton, of Peoria, Ill., for appellee.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

*583

[1] The Commission had found that the Peoria Company discriminated against the Minneapolis & St. Louis by imposing upon it riers were not required to pay any charge. a switching charge while certain other carsion directed that the discrimination be reBy the order of April 13, 1922, the Commismoved. That order left the Peoria Company free to remove the discrimination either by discontinuing *the charge complained of or by This suit by the Minneapolis & St. Louis making a like charge to the other lines. Railroad Company and its receiver against Compare United States v. Illinois Central R. the Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Company R. Co., 44 S. Ct. 189, 263 U. S. 515, 521, 68 L. was brought on August 6, 1925, in the federal Ed. 417. It elected to remove the discriminacourt for Southern Iowa. Its purpose is to tion by making a charge to the other carriers, enjoin the defendant from refusing to switch and filed tariffs to that end. The other carcars for the plaintiffs, the claim being that riers protested. The new tariffs were susthe defendant is directed to perform this pended for consideration by the Commission service by an order of the Interstate Com-in a new proceeding, known as Investigation merce Commission dated April 13, 1922. The and Suspension Docket No. 1596. At the recontroversy between the parties has been repeatedly before the Commission. One phase was considered by this court in Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co. v. United States, 44 S. Ct. 194, 263 U. S. 528, 68 L. Ed. 427. The case at bar presents only questions of jurisdiction and procedure.

*582

*The defendant is an Illinois corporation, with its principal place of business in that state.

quest of the Minneapolis & St. Louis, the proceeding which it had brought was, by order of July 10, 1922, reopened for further hearing in this connection. On December 22, 1922, the Commission concluded that the new tariffs were not justified, and that a still broader investigation involving additional parties must be had before just rates could be established. Intermediate Switching Charges at Peoria, Ill., 77 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 43. On that day, it entered an order in the original proceeding brought by the Minneapolis & St. Louis "that the complaint in this proceeding be, and it is hereby, dismissed." On the same day it entered in the later proceeding an order that the new tariffs be canceled.

The only service upon it was made there. Appearing specially, it objected both to the service and to the jurisdiction of the court, and moved that the service be quashed and the bill be dismissed. The plaintiffs contended that, under the Act of October 22, 1913, c. 32, 38 Stat. 208, 219, the federal court The Peoria Company concluded that the for Southern Iowa had jurisdiction and the order dismissing the complaint in the proservice was good, because the suit is one to ceeding instituted by the Minneapolis & St. enforce an order of the Commission made on Louis had the effect of rescinding the order petition of the plaintiff company, a resident of April 13, 1922, based thereon, and that its of that district. The court held, upon final original tariff of charges against the Minnehearing, that the order was no longer in ef-apolis & St. Louis, which had never been can

celed, remained in full force. On January 4, 113, 1922, later action of the Commission re1923, it notified the Commission that it would act accordingly. On January 5, 1923, the chairman of division 5 of the Commission 1 $584

telegraphed the Peoria *Company that the order of April 13, 1922, "still stands unrescinded." On January 8, 1923, the Commission entered, of its own motion, pursuant to para graph 2 of section 13 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended (Comp St. Supp. 1925, § 8581), an order for a. general investigation into switching charges at Peoria. With the proceeding so ordered, it reopened and consolidated the earlier ones. On January 18, 1923, the Commission issued the emergency service order requiring the Peoria Company to continue switching, which this court held to be void in Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co. v. United States, 44 S. Ct. 194, 263 U. S. 528, 68 L. Ed. 427, decided January 7, 1924.

stored it. The argument is that the telegram of January 5, 1923, and subsequent action of the Commission show that it was not its intention, when dismissing the complaint, to rescind the order; that paragraph 6 of section 16 of the act as amended (Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 8584) authorized the Commission to modify "its orders upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper"; that the order of January 8, 1823, besides providing for the general investigation, provided that the original proceeding of the Minneapolis & St. Louis be "reopened, consolidated with, and made a part of this investigation"; and that thereby the Commission restored the order of April 13, 1922. This contention, also, is unsound. sion did not at any time before the bringing The Commisof this suit make any order which purported either to rescind the order of dismissal of DeThe Minneapolis & St. Louis contends that cember 22, 1922, or to restore the order of the dismissal of its complaint on December April 13, 1922, or which made any reference 22, 1922, did not operate as a rescission of the either to such dismissal or to a restoration. order which had been entered thereon April | The opinion of a commissioner, expressed in 13, 1922. The argument is that the order by the telegram of January 5, 1923, that the orits terms provided that it "shall continue in der of April 13, 1922, was in full force despite force until the further order of the Commis- the dismissal of the complaint was without sion"; that, moreover, paragraph 2 of section legal significance. The effect of the order of 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amend-dismissal entered December 22, 1922, must be ed (Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 8583) provides determined by the terms of the order, unless that all orders of the Commission "shall con- and until modified by formal action of the tinue in force until its further order * * Commission. It cannot be affected by what unless the same shall be suspended or modi-a member of the Commission may declare infied or set aside by the Commission, or be suspended or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction"; that no order issued in terms rescinding the order of April 13, 1922, had ever been entered: that by section 16a (Comp. St. Supp. § 8585) the mere reopening of the case by the Commission did not so operate; and that, as the Commission in ordering dismissal of the complaint did not refer to the order of April 13, 1922, the latter re- [5] The Minneapolis & St. Louis seeks, mained in full force. The contention is un- through a motion to remand, to avoid affirmsound. The order of December 22, 1922, dis-ance of the decree which must otherwise remissed the complaint without making any reservation. It operated, therefore, to rescind the order of April 13, 1922, which rested on *motion, which was filed on January 7, 1926, that complaint alone. Compare Greenleaf v. prayed that the case be remanded to the DisQueen, 1 Pet. 138, 148, 149, 7 L. Ed. 85; Gom-trict Court with instructions to allow it to pers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 31 S. Ct. 492, 221 U. S. 418, 451, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874; Coleman v. Hudson River Bridge Co., Fed. Cas. No. 2,983, 5 Blatchf. 56,

58.

[2-4] The Minneapolis & St. Louis contends, also, that if the dismissal of the complaint

*585

formally was intended. The order of January 8, 1923, had the effect of restoring to the docket the original proceeding instituted by the Minneapolis & St. Louis; but by reopening the case for further hearing, the Commission did not indicate a purpose to restore the order of April 13, 1922. Compare Knox County v. Harshman, 10 S. Ct. 8, 132 U. S. 14, 16, 17, 33 L. Ed. 249.

sult from overruling these contentions. This

*586

file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, because of matters arising since the filing of the record in this court. It prayed in the alternative that this court treat the record here as supplemented by incorporating a statement of these later occurrences. They are as follows: On November 2, 1925, the Minneapolis & St. Louis filed in the federal court for Southern Iowa a suit against the United States in which it prayed that the 1 Pursuant to paragraph 4 of section 17 of the order of December 22, 1922, be annulled in so Interstate Commerce Act as amended (Comp. St. far as it operated to revoke the order of April Supp. 1925, § 8586), matters relating to common use of terminals and kindred subjects are referred to 13, 1922. On November 10, 1925, the Commisdivision 5. The Commissioner in each division, sion, on its own motion, ordered that its orsenior in service, is its chairman. See Annual Re-der of December 22, 1922, dismissing the port of Interstate Commerce Commission for 1920, complaint of the Minneapolis & St. Louis "be, Co., 44 S. Ct. 565, 265 U. S. 274, 281, 68 L. Ed. 1016. and it is hereby, vacated and set aside."

operated as a rescission of the *order of April

pp. 4, 5;

United States v. Abilene & Southern Ry.

(46 S. Ct.) Still later, following the proceeding before, 2. Death the Commission known as Rates, Regulations, and Practices of Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Company at Peoria, Ill., and Nearby Points, 93 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 3, the examiner recommended that the original tariff

of the Peoria Company complained of by the Minneapolis & St. Louis be canceled. The later facts alleged could not conceivably affect the result of the case before us. The jurisdiction of the lower court depends upon the state of things existing at the time the suit was brought. Mullen v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 6 L. Ed. 154; Anderson v. Watt, 11 S. Ct. 449, 138 U. S. 694, 34 L. Ed. 1078. The situation is wholly unlike that in Ballard v. Searls, 9 S. Ct. 418, 130 U. S. 50, 32 L. Ed. 846, upon which the Minneapolis & St. Louis relies. The motion to remand is denied.

39-Time of happening of events

fixing liability is test of accrual of cause of action for personal injury or wrongful death (Employers' Liability Act, as amended, § 6 [Comp. St. § 8662]).

Under the federal Employers' Liability Act, ing in section 6 that no action shall be mainas amended (Comp. St. § 8657 et seq.), provid

tained under the act unless commenced within two years from day cause of action accrued, test for determining when cause of action either for personal injuries or for wrongful death accrues is time of happening 'of events which fix defendant's liability.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.

Action by John L. Koons, administrator of Lester M. Koons, deceased, against the Reading Company, successor of the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company. JudgThe Peoria Company makes this further ment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Suobjection. The order of April 13, 1922, direct-preme Court of Pennsylvania (126 A. 381, 281 ed the removal of the discrimination to which Pa. 270), and defendant brings certiorari. the Minneapolis & St. Louis was subjected, but left the Peoria Company free to select the method of doing so. It elected to impose like switching charges upon the other carriers and to that end filed new tariffs. These

*587

were canceled by the order of December *22,
1922. Thus the method to be pursued in re-
moving the discrimination was left at large.
The Peoria Company contends that, even if
the order of April 13, 1922, be deemed to have
been in force, selection and approval of the
method to be pursued in the removal of dis-
crimination present administrative problems,
and that further action by the Commission
would be required before any court could be
called upon to enforce that order. As the
District Court for Southern Iowa was with-
out jurisdiction of this suit because that or-
der was not in, force, we need not consider
this objection.
Affirmed.

(271 U. S. 58)

READING CO. v. KOONS.

Reversed.

59

*Messrs. John T. Brady, of New York City, and Charles Heebner, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Mr. John R. Geyer, of Harrisburg, Pa., for respondent.

Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Five

Respondent's intestate, while employed by the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, an interstate carrier of which petitioner is the successor, received injuries from which he died on the following day, April 23, 1915. Letters of administration were granted to respondent September 23, 1921. months later, on February 6, 1922, nearly years after the death, respondent brought the action now under review in the Pennsylvania court of common pleas to establish a liability under the federal Employers' Liability Act. Act of April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65, 66, as amended by the Act of April 5, 1910, c. 143, 36 Stat. 291 (Comp. St. § 8657 et seq.).

seven

A petition of the defendant below, petitioner here, for judgment of nol. pros. on the ground that the action, having been brought

(Argued March 12-15, 1926. Decided April 12, more than two years after the death, was

1926.) No. 213.

barred by the statute of limitations, was denied (26 Dauphin County [Pa.] Reports 234), and judgment was entered for plaintiff, re

1. Death 39-Action under federal Employ-spondent here. On an appeal to the Supreme ers' Liability Act barred two years after death (Employers' Liability Act, as amended [Comp. St. § 8657 et seq.]).

Under the Employers' Liability Act, as amended (Comp. St. § 8657 et seq.), providing in section 6 that no action shall be maintained unless commenced within two years from day cause of action accrued, cause of action for death accrued at date of death, and not at time administrator is appointed.

Court of Pennsylvania, the judgment was affirmed. 126 A. 381, 281 Pa. 270. This court granted certiorari. 45 S. Ct. 197, 266 Ú. S. 600, 69 L. Ed. 461.

[1] As respondent brought his action more than two years after the death and less than two years after his appointment as adminis

*60

trator, the sole question presented for *review is whether, in an action for wrongful death

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

brought under the federal Employers' Liabil- | ilar state statutes. See Radezky v. Sargent ity Act, the two-year statute of limitations & Co., 58 A. 709, 77 Conn. 110; Rodman v. begins to run at the date of the death or at Ry., 70 P. 642, 65 Kan. 645, 59 L. R. A. 704; the date of the appointment of the adminis- Swisher v. Ry., 90 P. 812, 76 Kan. 97; Cartrator of the decedent. den, Adm'r, v. L. & N. R. R., 39 S. W. 1027, 101 Ky. 113; Gulledge v. R. R., 60 S. E. 1134, 147 N. C. 234, 125 Am. St. Rep. 544; Hall v. R. R., 62 S. E. 899, 149 N. C. 108.

The federal Employers' Liability Act imposes upon common carriers by railroad, engaged in interstate commerce, liability for the death of an employee employed in such commerce, when the death results from the negligence of the carrier or its agents, and gives a right of action to the personal representative of the decedent for the benefit of the surviving spouse and children of such employee, or if there are no such survivors, then for the benefit of his dependent next of kin. By section 6 of the act, it is provided: "That no action shall be maintained under this act unless commenced within two years from the day the cause of action accrued."

The application of this statute turns on the question whether the cause of action created by the act may be deemed to have "accrued," within the meaning of the act, at the time of death or on the appointment of the administrator, who is the only person authorized by the statute to maintain the action. American R. R. of Porto Rico v. Birch, 32 S. Ct. 603, 224 U. S. 547, 56 L. Ed. 879; St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. v. Seale, 33 S. Ct. 651, 229 U. S. 156, 57 L. Ed. 1129, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 156. The question has never been directly answered by this court, although in Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Wulf, 33 S. Ct. 135, 226 U. S. 570, 57 L. Ed. 355, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 134, it was assumed that the cause of action was barred in two years after the death.

It has received conflicting answers in the decisions of other courts. The decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in American R. R. of Porto Rico v. Coronas, 230 F. 545, 144 C. C. A. 599, L. R. A. 1916E, 1095, holding that the statute does not begin to run until the appointment of the administrator has been followed in Guinther v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 85, in Kierejewski v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (D. C.) 280 F. 125, and in Bird v. Ft.

*61

Worth & Rio Grande *Railway, 207 S. W. 518, 109 Tex. 323. Other cases have laid down a similar rule with respect to state laws giving a right of recovery for wrongful death. Andrews v. Hartford & New Haven R. R., 34 Conn. 57; Crapo v. City of Syracuse, 76 N. E. 465, 183 N. Y. 395.

This diversity of view arises principally from the attempt made to find in the word "accrued," used in the statute, some definite technical meaning which will in itself enable courts to say at what point of time the cause of action has come into existence, and consequently at what point of time the statute of limitations begins to run.

It is argued in support of one view, as the court below held, that as the cause of action for death is the creature of statute, and is given exclusively to the administrator of the decedent, no cause of action can arise or accrue until there is an administrator. On the other hand, it is asserted with, we think, equal plausibility, that, when all of the events have occurred which determine the liability of the common carrier, the cause of action has come into existence or has "accrued."

We do not think it is possible to assign to the word "accrued" any definite technical

*62

meaning which by itself would enable us to say whether the statutory period begins to run at one time or the other; but the uncertainty is removed when the word is interpreted in the light of the general purposes of the statute and of its other provisions, and with due regard to those practical ends which are to be served by any limitation of the time within which an action must be brought.

Whatever effect may be given to the assertion often made in judicial opinion that in the ordinary case where a cause of action arises in favor of the estate of a decedent there is no person who can enforce it if there is no executor or administrator,1 that statement cannot be applied strictly to causes of action for death arising under the federal Employers' Liability Act. For while it is true that the executor or administrator is the person authorized to bring the suit, he nevertheless acts only for the benefit of persons specifically designated in the statute. At the time of death there are identified persons for whose benefit the liability exists and who can start the machinery of the law in motion to enforce it, by applying for the appointment of an administrator. This court has held that a suit brought by such persons in their individual capacity is not a nullity within the

On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Georgia (Seaboard Air Line v. Brooks, 107 S. E. 878, 151 Ga. 625) and the Supreme Court of Kansas (Giersch v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry., 171 P. 591, 16 A. L. R. 470) have expressly declined to follow the rule 1 See Johnson, Adm'r, v. Wren, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 172; laid down in the First Circuit in American Bucklin v. Ford, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 393; Dunning v. R. R. of Porto Rico v. Coronas, supra. The Ocean Nat. Bank, 61 N. Y. 497, 19 Am. Rep. 293; Seysame result was reached in Bixler v. Penn-mour v. Mechanics & Metals Nat. Bank, 192 N. Y. sylvania R. R. (D. C.) 201 F. 553, and a like rule has been applied in state courts to sim

S. 588, 199 App. Div. 707; Murray v. East India Co., 5 B. & Ald. 204. But see Tynan v. Walker, 35 Cal. 634, 637, 638, 95 Am. Dec. 152.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »