Jurisdictional Statement — Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper

‘

* °

° 3

e

”»

’ ;

’

.

.

3 ”

+

®

A R

~~

.

.

.

.

‘ .

’

.

‘

-

.

<

‘

o

°

Sn

G

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Mie:

OCTOBER TERM, 1931. ~~.

T . ap gp eee

No. 423 -

BRADFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT COMP _ INC,

APPELLANT,

o “

vs. .

ae 7 | fre

_ JENNIE M. CLAPPER, Apmrnistrateix. on

+

.

STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION.

faa i 'e

WM. E. -LEAHY, :

| GEORGE T. HUGHES,

se | STANLEY M. BURNS,

a > ; Counsel for Petitioner.

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

Ky

3

Davis v. Mills, 194 U. S., 451......... STO a ee a a

‘Galveston Ry. v. Wallace, 203 Uz y ” 481, Re

Hancock Nat’l Bank y. Farnum, 2 Se here

James-Dickinson, etc., Co. v. Harry, 273 U. S., 119............

Liberato vy. Royer, 270 U. S., Sy ean incneees Reka visees a

Montana Mining Co. v. St. Louis, ete., Co., 204 U. S., 204..../.

Mulhall v. Nashua Mfg. Co., 80'N. H., 194:.........ccccccce r

National Bank v. Francklyn, 120 U. S., 747, 758............. Ae

Northern Pacific R. R..v. Babcock, 154 U. S, 190..... oiadiies

O'Callaghan v. O’Brien, 199 U. S., 89...... Fincstdescsve >.

Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall., 520; 527..... fe Cs AE shahhives

' Seott v. White Eagle Oil and Refining Co., — Fed. (2a), —

; (Kans.), decided Gag sory Mh uaseeis ban6dne waddnc<e

eee eeeeewon

@

i--}

g

<

<4

*®

*

a

S

5

7

> °

o

=]

#

ae!

=:

£

q

bo

:<

> > Ph

STATUTES Crean. ,

Constitution of the United States, Article BV, BOG. Lovcsbbovcs

. Judicial Code, Sec. 240 (b) (28 U. 8. C. A, ae A ae

Workmen’s Compensation Act; of Vermont :(Chapt. 241, Gen-

eral Laws of Vermont, —. 5673, 5765, 5770774, 5762) .. 3

~*

.

J °

ono hh RHR ROK EE DD

es)

‘

‘

é * -

“ ’

La *. :

.

“+ .

° t o

.

¥ s

.

. .

.

7 .

na

ell

. - .

@ .

® a

4 :

.

4 .

.

-

“%

. &

-

‘

° : =

6 ,

® - .

7

»

.

«

Z .

.

*

t ‘ »

ENS EATON PY EL PRTG SAIN Liye EBT AAMAS BEVIN IEMA Sere A

. © ° . .

a 6 , : e

g

_ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

‘OCTOBER _ 1931."

—

No. 423

BRADFORD ELECTRIC I LIGHT .COMPANY, INC.,

_ APPELLANT,

“Y Vs.

- -

JENNIE M. CLAPPER, Apmiisrratarx.

wits

STATEMENT OF BASIS ON WHICH APPELLANT

CONTENDS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES HAS JURISDICTION TO RE- -

VIEW ON APPEAL THE JUDGMENT AP-

_ PEALED FROM, AS REQUIRED BY SUPREME

. COURT RULE 12.

~ Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 12, par. 1, Brad-

ford. Electric Light Company, Inc., the above appel-

lant, files this, its statement showing the basis on

which said appellant contends that the Supreme Court

has appellate jurisdiction to review on appeal the

judgment appealed from herein, as follows: |

SLA AAR D Y, MELOE RIO VTL LES LOOLLGELOIEIO I BEE ENS ONLY STEIN fey napa hee Std Gale page Bete ;

- '

I. The statute believed to sustain appellate juris-

_ diction is section 240 (b) Judicial Code’ (28 u. &.. C.

A. (347 ), which provides that

(b) Any case in a circuit mn of appeals

where is drawn in question the validity of a .

statute of any State, on the ground of its: being -

repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws

of the United States, and the decision is against

its validity, may, at the election of the party

relying on such State statute, be taken to the

Supreme Court for review on writ of error or

appeal; but in that event a review on certiorari

shall not be allowed at the instance of such

party, and the review on such. writ of error or

appeal shall be restricted to an examination-

and decision of the Federal questions presented

in the case.

II. The jalemsnt appealed from was entered’ on

thie twenty- ninth day of June, 1931, as appears from

page 385 of the printed resord herein.

ITI. The ‘application for an appeal was presented

on the twelfth day of September, 1931, as appears

-. from page .386 of the printed record herein, and was

allowed September 12, 1921. (RB. 389.)

_. IV. The appeal herein is from a judgment of the

Circuit Court.of the United States for the First Cir-

cuit in a civil case at law to recover damages for. per- -

sonal injuries resulting in the death of Respondent’s

intestate, Leon J. Clapper, said injuries being sus-

tained by the said Leon J. Clapper while in Petitioner’s

employ, to review the opiniong of said United States

- Circuit Court for the First Circuit, handed down under

dates of January 8, 1931, and June 29, 1931, respec-

tively as appears from pages 361: and 374 of the peed

record herein.

' Appellee’s intestate was in the employ of appellant

and fatally. injured July, 30, 1926, at Haverhill, New

‘ Hampshire; prior to which time appellant, a public

utility engaged in interstate commerce had accepted

the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act

of the State of Vermont (R. 203), wherein appellant”

was incorporated. The provisions of said Act were

extra-territorial in operation and applied to injuries

~ received outside the State of Vermont. (Chapter 241

General Laws of Vermont relating to Labor, Sections

5765, 0770, 5774, 5762.) «

The question of the extra-territorial effect of the -

Vermont laws was specifically raised and ruled on.

-(R. 25, 26.)

The Circuit Court of Appeals, contrary to the pro-

visions of Article IV, Sec.’1, of the Constitution of

the United States, failed to give full faith and credit

to the General Laws of Vermont relating to Labor,

Chapter 241, Sections 5763, 5765, 5770, 5774, and 5762,

in the State of Vermont, which laws by agreement of

the parties become part of the contract of employment. .

Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wail., 520, 027..

- Galveston Ry. v. Wallace, 993 U. S. 481, 490.

Stewart v. B. & O. R. Co., 168'U. 8. 445. |

National Bank v. Francklyn, 120 U. 8. 747, 753.

The validity of Sections 5763, 5765, 5770, 5774, and,

- 5762 of the laws . Vermont relating to Labor was

” . . , °

° : .

| .

- .

’ 4 ee

a Aig guectame® pause tena mepEeN ty exinat tI Pema nm Qawart TE MONNT® oy ae RL aE ae

eae

*

specifically drawn in question by appellant as, showr ‘

by*the opinions of the court below (R. 361- 383) and *

by the petition for the aPbeal (R. 386) and the assign-

ment. of errors, (R. 387-388. )

fe V. The cases believed to sustain the jurisdiction are

as follows: ;

Dennick ¥. Central R..R. Co., 103 U. 8. 11;

Northern Pacific Railroad v. Babcock, 154 U. i.

190;

Stewart v. Baltimore & ma ea 168 U. S..

445 ;

Hancock Nat’! Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640;

Slater v. Mexican National id. Co., 194 U. S.

120;

Davis v. Mills, 194. U. 8S. 451;

St. Louis etc. Co. v- Taylor, 210.U. 8S. 281;

American Express Co. v. Mullins, 212 U.S. 311

Atchison etc. Co, v. Sowers, 213 U..S. 55

Liberato v. Royer; 270 U.S. 535; ~

Montana Mining Co. v. St. Louis etc. Co., 204

. U.§, 204;

Security Pras Co. v. Dent, 187 U. S 237;.

- O’Callaghan v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89;

James-Dickinson ete. Co. v. Harry, 273 U.S _

119;

See also: Ora Scott v. White Bagle Oil and Re-

- fining Company, decided February 3, 1930, by

Federal District. Court of Kansas;

Barnhart v. Am. Concrete Steel Co., 277 N. . 2

«581; - |

Mulhall v. Nashua Mfg. Co., 80 N. H. 194.

WR PROD Ran eeu, Nee at LR OEE EEE LO ORIG RG are WIE Nae ve - 7 ore eee pond wy, A

¢ re 5- -

‘

_ See also atatemnany ot Circuit Judge Wilson in dis-

senting, opinion, (R. 379), as follows: .

‘ The case at bar “‘is ona of new impressions, -

and owing to the peculiar nafure of the New

Hampshire Employers’ Liability and Compen-’ -

sation Act is unique in the issugs it presents,

- and of importance to employers, especially in

adjoining states.’’ : foie

-Dated October 26, 1931.

Respectfully submitted,

. ) ee ie

WM. E. LEARY, '

GEORGE T. HUGHES,

STANLEY M. BURNS,

Counsel for Petitioner.

(1294)

aes ae ee eee Ty - TUT Sa