« ForrigeFortsett »
244 U. S.
Opinion of the Court.
River, New York City, lying in navigable waters of the Hudson River. Said pier is leased by Clyde Steamship Company from the City of New York.
"4. While claimant was hooking the rope of a derrick into a load of lumber in the between decks of said vessel for the purpose of unloading it from that vessel, his hand was jammed against the lumber, resulting in laceration of the second finger of the left hand. Claimant was disabled by reason of the injury from July 1, 1914, to July 22, 1914, returning to work upon the latter date.
"5. The business of the Clyde Steamship Company in this state consists solely of carrying passengers and merchandise to New York from other states and carrying passengers and merchandise from New York to other states. All cargo on board the Cherokee, including the lumber aforesaid, had been taken on board in the State of North Carolina and carried by water to New York and was there unloaded from the steamship Cherokee. The claimant was engaged solely in handling said lumber.
"6. The injury was an accidental injury and arose out of and in the course of the employment of claimant by the Clyde Steamship Company. The injury did not result solely from the intoxication of the injured employee while on duty, and was not occasioned by the wilful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or another.
"7. The average weekly wage of claimant was $17.30." Without opinion the Appellate Division affirmed the award, and this action was approved by the Court of Appeals. 215 N. Y. 529.
In Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen, just decided, ante, 205, we considered and disposed of the fundamental question here involved. The legislature exceeded its authority in attempting to extend the statute to conditions like those which the record discloses.
The judgment of the court below must be reversed and
the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion in the former case.
Dissenting: MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, MR. JUSTICE PITNEY, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS and MR. JUSTICE CLARKE.
SUTTON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
MIHM v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
Nos. 189, 190. Argued April 20, 1917.-Decided May 21, 1917.
A state law requiring a street car company to carry city detectives free when in the discharge of duty, Held not an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of police power.
A state law requiring a street car company to carry city detectives free while in the discharge of duty is a valid exercise of a reserved power to amend the company's charter.
87 N. J. L. 192; id., 332, affirmed.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Frank Bergen for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. John Bentley for defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases were argued together. In each the New Jersey statute (P. L. 1912, p. 235,1) requiring street rail
11. On and after the passage of this act each street railway company or corporation referred to in the act to which this act is a supple
way companies to grant free transportation to police officers while engaged in the performance of their public duties, is assailed as invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each a prosecution for assault and battery was brought against an inspector employed by the Public Service Railway Company of Jersey City, for ejecting a city detective who refused to pay his fare. Both detectives were in plain clothes, but showed their badges and claimed the right to ride free of charge. Both detectives were on duty at the time-one was on his way to report at headquarters; the other to interview the victim of a robbery. The defence in each case was the unconstitutionality of the statute and that the detective, having wrongfully refused to pay his fare, was ejected with no more than necessary force. The police justice, before whom the prosecutions were instituted, found the defendants guilty and fined them. These judgments were affirmed in successive appeals to the Supreme Court and to the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. 83 N. J. L. 46. 87 N. J. L. 192. The case comes here on writ of error.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey said:
"Policemen are frequently required to be on street cars in the execution of their duties to preserve the peace, to enforce ordinances and to prevent or detect crime. It would be difficult to say that the mere presence of a police officer might not be of value for securing these objects at any rate, the legislature might reason
ment shall grant free transportation of uniformed public officers while engaged in the performance of their public duties, or police officers of whatever grade or rank acting as detectives, county detectives, or detectives attached to or connected with the office of the prosecutor of the pleas in any county in this State while engaged in the performance of their public duties, whose duties require police duty to be performed without uniform.
Opinion of the Court.
244 U. S.
ably think so, and legalize his presence on the car without payment of fare."
Freedom to come and go upon the street cars without the obstacle or discouragement incident to payment of fares may well have been deemed by the legislature essential to efficient and pervasive performance of the police duty. Increased protection may thereby enure to both the company and the general public without imposing upon the former an appreciable burden. If any evidence of the reasonableness of the provision were needed, it could be found in the fact that such officers had been voluntarily carried free by the company and its predecessors for at least eighteen years prior to July 4, 1910, when the practice was prohibited by the Public Utilities Act (P. L. 1910, p. 58). In the following year such free transportation was expressly permitted (P. L. 1911, p. 29), and it was made mandatory by the act here in question. We cannot say that the requirement that city detectives not in uniform be carried free on street cars when in the discharge of their duties is an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of the police power.
Furthermore the charter of the Railway Company was subject to alteration in the discretion of the legislature (Constitution of New Jersey, Art. IV., § 7, Par. 11. P. L. 1846, p. 17.) The obligation to carry free city detectives engaged in the discharge of their duties is a burden far lighter than others imposed upon street-using corporations which have been sustained by this court as a valid exercise of the reserved power.1
The statute is broad in scope, extending also to all "uniformed public officers"; but the court below expressly confined its decision to the case presented, sustaining the
1 Stanislaus County v. San Joaquin C. & I. Co., 192 U. S. 201; San Antonio Traction Co. v. Altgelt, 200 U. S. 304; Fair Haven & Westville R. R. Co. v. New Haven, 203 U. S. 379.
244 U. S.
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Error.
law "in so far as it applies to police officers"; and our decision is likewise so limited.
The judgments are
MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA and MR. JUSTICE PITNEY dissent.
UNITED COPPER SECURITIES COMPANY ET AL. v. AMALGAMATED COPPER COMPANY ET AL.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
No. 208. Argued April 24, 1917.—Decided May 21, 1917.
The established principles limiting the right of a stockholder to sue on behalf of the corporation when it refuses to do so, restated and held applicable to an action for damages based on alleged injury to the corporation through violations of the Sherman Act.
The rule which confines the individual stockholder to the equitable forum when seeking to enforce a right of the corporation applies when the cause of action arises under the Sherman Act, as in other cases. Fleitmann v. Welsbach Co., 240 U. S. 27, distinguished. Whether or not in an action by stockholders to enforce an alleged right of their corporation this court has power to substitute as plaintiffs persons appointed receivers of the corporation while the writ of error is pending, Held that in the circumstances stated in the opinion such a motion was without merit in this case.
223 Fed. Rep. 421, affirmed.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Ferdinand E. M. Bullowa, with whom Mr. Ralph James M. Bullowa, Mr. Emilie M. Bullowa and Mr. Robert H. McCarter were on the briefs, for plaintiffs in error.