Flaiz v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. — Hon. Leo 8. Rassieur, Judge. ‘ (1) The inquiry in this case is as to the validity or invalidity of a clause in Rule 63 of the Burlington Railroad Company Relief Department which undertakes to forfeit the rights and benefits of the beneficiary of a Relief Certificate upon the bringing of a suit for damages for death of the member of said department on whom said certificate is issued.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. — Hon. Leo 8. Rassieur, Judge. ‘ (1) The inquiry in this case is as to the validity or invalidity of a clause in Rule 63 of the Burlington Railroad Company Relief Department which undertakes to forfeit the rights and benefits of the beneficiary of a Relief Certificate upon the bringing of a suit for damages for death of the member of said department on whom said certificate is issued. (2) This clause of Rule 63 is void under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act of 1908. 36 Stat. at L. (U. S.) 6.5; Railroad v. Schubert, 224 TJ. S. 603; State v. Railroad,…
1Opinion of the Court
Statement.
The petition in this action avers that the defendant company maintains a department of service for the establishment and management of a fund known as the Relief Fund, for the payment of a definite amount to the relatives or beneficiaries of its employees, who are killed and who have, in accordance with the provisions of the department, contributed to the Relief Fund and become a member thereof; that this department has been maintained by defendant since and prior to March 15, 1889, and continuously down to the date of the institution of this action (November 18, 1910), and that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. HealyNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
- Hartman v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Matthews v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ising v. Barnes HospitalMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984