Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Kenney
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. The facts, which involve the construction and application of the Employers’ Liability Acts of 1908 and 1910, and the determination of who are the next of kin entitled to maintain an action thereunder, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. The facts, which involve the construction and application of the Employers’ Liability Acts of 1908 and 1910, and the determination of who are the next of kin entitled to maintain an action thereunder, are stated in the opinion. The alleged beneficiaries, Sills Hardy, Joe Hardy and Nettie Hardy, who are.legitimate children of the mother of the deceased employee, who was an illegitimate child, are not the next of kin of such employee within the provisions of § 1 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The surviving father of a deceased…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice White
The trial court on the verdict of a jury entered judgment against the plaintiff in error for the sum of $800 for the negligent killing of Capehart who was one of its employees, and this writ of error is prosecuted to reverse th§ action of the court below affirming such judgment. (167 Nor. Car. 14.) At the time of his death Capehart was a minor and was employed by the defendant company as a switchman. The accident occurred in North Carolina on an interstate freight train moving from a point in North Carolina to one in Virginia. The suit to recover was specifically based on the Employers’…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Second Employers'liability CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. HortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Michigan Central Railroad v. VreelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Taylor v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Great Northern Railway Co. v. KnappSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Patricia Lebouef Murphy, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Fontenot, Deceased, Etc. v. Houma Well Service, and Eva C. Fontenot, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- De Sylva v. BallentineSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Town of Burlington v. Department of Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Town of Burlington v. Department of Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, John Doe, Etc., Town of Burlington v. Department of Education for the Commonwealth of MassachusettsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
- Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. PrattCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1944
- Middleton v. Luckenbach S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.