Miner v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Upon the petition of defendant company and John Barton Payne, Director General of Railroads, the supreme court granted its order directed to the district court of the Fourth judicial district, requiring it to show cause why it should not be absolutely restrained from any further proceeding in the above entitled action.
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
Prohibition to the Hennepin district court directing'it to refrain from further proceedings in an action therein brought by Arthur Miner against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company.
The ground of the writ is that the district court is without jurisdiction because the action has been removed to the Federal district court.
The action was under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act for personal injuries. Issue was joined and pending trial the defendant, or the Director General of Railroads, settled with the plaintiff without the consent of his attorney, Stiles, who had a contract…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Southern Railway Co. v. PuckettSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. LeslieSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Southern Railway Co. v. LloydSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Dickinson v. StilesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co. v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Boright v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Krippner v. MatzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- Byram v. MinerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
- Kowalski v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Thompson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.