Supreme Court of the United States, 1885

Price and Others v. Pennsylvania R. Co

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 26, 1885 · Miller

113 U.S. 218; 5 S. Ct. 427; 28 L. Ed. 980; 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1672 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Charles A. Ray, Mr. Edward A. Newman, and Mr. Thomas M. Bayne for plaintiffs in error submitted on their brief. —, Mr. John Dalzell argued for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Jablinsky v. Continental Pacific Lines, Inc. (Wash. 1961)
Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi (Supreme Court of the United States 1945)
Lusk v. Wilkes (Okla. 1917)
Yarrington v. Delaware & Hudson Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Pennsylvania 1906)
Boston Insurance v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. (Iowa 1902)
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Davis (Md. 1927)
Buck v. Kuykendall (District Court, W.D. Washington 1923)
Phipps v. Wisconsin Central Railway Co. (Wis. 1907)
Martin v. Pittsburg & Lake Erie Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1906)
Wabash Railroad v. Jellison (Ill. App. Ct. 1906)
P. & L. E. R. R. v. Bishop (Mahoning Circuit Court 1896)
P. &. L. E. R. R. v. Bishop (Ohio Circuit Courts 1896)
Magoffin v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. (Mo. 1890)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice Miller

delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as above stated, and continued:

The plaintiff argues here, and insisted throughout the progress of the case in the State courts, that by reason of certain laws of the United States as applied to the facts found in the verdict of the jury, the decedent was a passenger, and the Supreme Court erred in holding otherwise.

These laws are thus cited in the brief of plaintiff’s-counsel:

“Act March 3, 1865, § 8,13 Stat. 506, provides that ‘Forthepurpose of assorting and distributing letters and other matter in railway post offices, the Postmaster General may, from time to time, appoint clerks who shall be paid out of the appropriation for mail transportation.’

“ § 4000 Rev. Stat. requires that ‘ Every railway company carrying the mail shall carry on any train which may run over its road, and without extra charge therefor, all mailable matter directed to be carried thereon, with the person in charge-of the same.’ ”

We do not' think these provisions either aid or govern the construction of the proviso in the Pennsylvania statute.

The person thus to be carried with the mail matter, without extra charge, is no more a passenger because he is in charge of the mail, nor because no other compensation is made for his transportation, than if he had no such charge, nor does the fact that.he is in the employment of the United States, and that defendant is bound by contract with the government to carry him, affect the question. It would be just the same if the company had contracted with any other person who had 'charge of freight on the train to carry him without additional compensation. The statutes of the United States which authorize this employment and direct this service do not, therefore, make the person so engaged a passenger, or deprive, him of that charac *222 ter, in construing the Pennsylvania statúté,' Nbr does it give to persons sq employed any rigjit, as agaiqst the railroad company, which would not belong to any other' persón in a similar employment, by others than the United States.

We are, therefore, of opinion that no question of federal authority was involved in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the writ of error is accordingly

Dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.