Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HENRIE, 1909 — 214 U.S. 491 · caselaw · US
General
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HENRIE
214 U.S. 491·Supreme Court of the United States·1909
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HENRIE.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ARKANSAS.
No. 648.
Motions to dismiss or affirm and for damages.
Submitted April 2, 1909.
Decided April 19, 1909.
Writ óf error to review judgment of the state court dismissed without opinion for want of jurisdiction, there being no Federal question, ox if any, it was raised too late.
This was an action- for damages in which the defendant in error (plaintiff below) had recovered judgment for death of her husband, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State and a petition for a rehearing denied by that court.
The motion to dismiss was based-on the grounds that the contention of the plaintiff in error that the construction of the safety appliance act of March 2, 1893, was involved was raised for the first time on the motion for rehearing in the Supreme Court of the State, and that the opinion of the court denying the motion showed that the defendant below not having brought these points to the attention of the court on trial could not raise them on the appeal, and that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury as to whether the safety appliances worked.
Mr. William H. Arnold for defendants in error in support of motions.
Mr. Samuel W. Moore, Mr. James F. Bead and Mr. James B. McDonough for plaintiff in error in opposition to motions.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. G., C. & S. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 411; Behn v. Campbell, 205 U. S. 407; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Stickney v. Kelsey, 209 U. S. 419; Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86.