Grew v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.
In order to sustain its motion for a directed verdict, the defendant undertook to establish the validity of two legal propositions, viz: 1. That upon the uncontroverted facts set forth above, the plaintiff at the time of his injury was engaged in interstate commerce, and 2. That his rights were, therefore, governed exclusively by the federal employers’ liability act which would bar a recovery by reason of the two-year limitation contained therein. It is unnecessary for us to consider the merits of the first proposition, for the second is clearly unsound.
The act of congress known as the safety…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. RigsbySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Central Vermont Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Campbell v. HaverhillSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. KinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. PopplarSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gosselin v. LemaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
- Rosan v. RaudonisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934