Legal Opinion

Southern Ry. Co. v. Varnell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 18, 1930No. 6 Div. 764PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

The only point for decision is whether or not the intestate was engaged in interstate work at the time of his injury which resulted in his death so as to exclude this case from the operation of the state Workmen’s Compensation Act (Code 1923, § 7534 etseq.).

It is undisputed that the intestate, Varnell, was a yard policeman or watchman, that he arrested or removed two hobos from a car of one of the defendant’s trains, which had just been made up and which was destined for Meridian, Miss.; that some of the cars were intrastate, while others were interstate. That, after the intestate arrested…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. Di DonatoSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  3. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. PolkSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. Bauchspies v. Central Railroad of New JerseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  5. Fitzgerald v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nichols v. St. Louis S. F. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  2. Southern Ry. Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  3. Deaton Truck Line, Inc. v. AckerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1954
  4. Deaton Truck Line, Inc. v. AckerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1954
  5. Nichols v. St. Louis S. F. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API