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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0181%3A03

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement
- **Published:** January 1, 1932
- **Citation:** 286 U.S. 145

## Text

‘
* °
° 3
e
”»
’ ;
’
.
.
3 ”
+
®
A R
~~
.
.
.
.
‘ .
’
.
‘
-
.
; 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 °
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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0181%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.