Supreme Court of the United States, 1914

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Polt

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 26, 1914 · Holmes

232 U.S. 165; 34 S. Ct. 301; 58 L. Ed. 554; 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1405 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. William G. Porter, with whom Mr. Burton Hanson, Mr. Ed. L. Grantham and Mr. .Harrison C. Preston were on the brief, for plaintiff in error: ., There was no appearance or brief filed for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

54 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Bethlehem Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1941)
General Electric Co. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board (Wis. 1958)
General Electric Co. v. Jackson (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
Costa v. Lauderdale Beach Hotel (Pa. 1993)
Raymond D. Womer v. Robert Hampton (5th Cir. 1974)
Sands v. Wainwright (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1973)
Berens v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R. Co. (S.D. 1963)
Department & Specialty Store Employees' Union, Local 1265 v. Brown (9th Cir. 1961)
Department & Specialty Store Employees' Union, Local 1265 v. Brown (9th Cir. 1960)
Dolcin Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission (D.C. Cir. 1955)
American Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Jordan (District Court, District of Columbia 1946)
E. B. Muller & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (6th Cir. 1944)
National Labor Relations Board v. Phelps (5th Cir. 1943)
United States v. Clyde S. S. Co. (2d Cir. 1929)
Pierce v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. (Iowa 1917)
Morrisania Community Corp. v. Tarr (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
Brooks v. Gladden (Or. 1961)
Hannah v. Larche (Supreme Court of the United States 1960)
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (Supreme Court of the United States 1951)
Tulier Olivera v. Puerto Rico Land Authority (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1949)
Tulier Olivera v. Autoridad de Tierras de Puerto Rico (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1949)
State ex rel. Madison Airport Co. v. Wrabetz (Wis. 1939)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Industrial Commission (D. Minn. 1938)
Erie Lighting Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Pa. Super. Ct. 1938)
West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Ohio (Supreme Court of the United States 1935)

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

Me. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit against the plaintiff in error for loss of property destroyed by fire communicated from its locomotive engine. A statute of South Dakota, after making -the Railroad Company absolutely responsible in such cases, goes on to make it liable for double the amount of damage actually sustained unless it pays the full amount .within sixty days from notice. If, within sixty days, it shall “offer in writing to pay a fixed sum, being the full amount of the damages sustained and the owner shall refuse to accept the same, then in any action thereafter brought for such damages when such owner recovers a less sum as-damages than the amount so offered, then such owner shall recover only his damages, and the railway company shall recover its costs.” South Dakota Laws, 1907, c. 215. The plaintiff got a verdict for $780. The Railroad had offered $500; less, that is, than the amount of the verdict, while the plaintiff on the other hand demanded more. In his demand, his declaration and his testimony he set the damage at $838.20. A judgment for double damages was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 26 So. Dak. 378.

The defendant in error presented no argument, probably becausedie realized that under the recent decisions *168 of this court the judgment could not be sustained. No doubt the States have a large latitude in the policy that they will pursue and enforce, but the rudiments of fair play required by the Fourteenth Amendment are wanting when a defendant is required to guess rightly what a jury will find, or pay double if that body sees fit to add one cent to the amount that was tendered, although the tender was obviously futile because of an excessive demand. The case is covered by St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U. S. 354. It is not like those in which a moderate penalty is imposed for failure to satisfy a demand found to be just. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U. S. 217.

Judgment reversed.

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