# Statement Opposing Jurisdiction — James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0247%3A5

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Statement Opposing Jurisdiction
- **Published:** January 1, 1940
- **Citation:** 309 U.S. 94

## Text

ae eT py a 1999 |
ae . :
; we! *Et§ Were 0 Cech EY {

OLERK.

SUPREME COURT OF THE. UNITED: srames

*
oe _ . OCTOBER TERM, 1939

No. 251

eee | | |
_ JAMES STNWART & CO., INC? |
a u Appellant, .

Us.

_ KATHERINE SADRAKULA, as ApMinistratrix or THE
' Goops, Cuatrrets AND Creprrs Winicn Were or Nicronas
SaDRAKULA, DECEASED. 2 28 ame

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

G
2. miss or affirm yes | ae oe iy
, é Preliminary statement. ; ‘ pice al ae
4 L. Tliere i is no Federal question i involved 7 3)
: . There is: no substantial Fec leral atari roe
ES volved ....... Rt eared eae
2 Answering appellant’ s assignment of errors: 11 war
Ay codec MERE ene eon ee
e 3 es :
4 ~ TasLe or Cases Crrep.
4 tna Life Insurance Co. v. Dunkeén, 266 U.S. 3889 11
4 “Alewander v.. Movictonews, 273 NOY. 511, 301 UL S. |
(a + 702- ae ee 5
| Alive vw UL S., 1 Ct. of Claims, 233, rev’d 6 Wall. 573, | |
a ISL. Ed. 947: yun ee
i 4 Alward vy. Johnson, 282 U.S. 509 10)
ig Arlington Hotel. vy. Fant, 278 U.S. 439 a
m4 Atkinson v. State Tax Commission, 62 P. (2d) 18, 7
| 4 aff'd 303 ©: S. 20 a | a a
4 Barrett y, Palmer, 135 N 1. Y: 336, 162 U.S. 399 6,7

a ee tohinhoff v. Fischer, 210 N: Y. He. 4 id 8

Brinke rhoff- warts Tr ust, ete, V .. Mill, 281 U. S. |
673 patie he ee ee a ee eS a ee

Campbell vy. fi 'nited States, 107 +S. 407 1

: : “Chapin v. Fye, 179 8S. 127 / 3
3 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RR. Co, v.. McGlinin, 4 Pe a
14U.S. 542 7)... | |. 6,7

- Coombs vw. Getz,.285 U.S. 4840 - -- ‘e481
) + Currin vy. Wallace, 59 S. Ct. 379 Pe
— . Deming. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U.S, 102 7 ) ors
Drammond v. Norton,.156 A. D. ads aff’d 213 N.Y. |
2 670. as Fhe 8.
‘eh Fiske ¥. Beneec wet. S. 380 ’ . a &
: Ft. “Leavenworth Ry. Con. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525. i rho See
| 2928"

il . - INDEX —

é Page

“Honeyman v. Hanan, 800 U.S. 14, appeal dismissed
302 U.S. 375 | ae i eS
‘James y. Dravo Conrtrac linet! 0., 802 ULS, 124 10
Kaufmany. Hopper, 220 N.Y. 184 peas 6
Lar SOWN, South Dak ota, 278 U.S. 42 29, 73 L. Eid. 441 ce 4
’ Maryland Cas, Co. ve Cited States, 251 U.S. 342 15
Mellony. O'Neill, 275 U.S. 212772 lL. Ed. 25 ans,
Morrill ¥. Jones, 106 U.S. 466 12

Murray v. Joe Gerrick & Co., 291 U.S. 3815, 78 L. Ed.

. 821 6,9
Milheim vy. Moffat oe l, ete:, 262,08. 710 ; as,
Panama Refining Cov. Ryan, 55 S.C t 241 mee: Se
Price v, WMinois, 238 U.S. 446.° : R11
Ralph Sollett, ete v. Commonwealth, 78 L. Ed. 1463 _ 1
Roe va Nausas, 978 U, Ss. 191 DNS eee tee og oi Pas 11
Sauer v. United States, 10 F. (: 2d) 416 : ie
Schmidt vy Merchants sibas ni Transportation Co,

2iON, Y. 287 . Mt)
Seaboard Air Line v. Watson, 287 U. , 11
Silas Mason Co. v. Tar Commission vs rs Waikinieon, .

302 US. 186, 82 L. Ed. (adv.) 154, 159 4
Sterley, Halligan, 229-6. 1011 ee
if N.Y, Lage hereon a a a

. Tishman, 99 FB. (2) 954, certiorari denied,

x t. 487. oes 1:3.
WSN Vanilla, 220 ULS. 345 6

VU. Tel. Coc. Chiles, 14.0, 8. 274 | 6
Sratutes C1tep.

Labor Law, Sect. 241 sub.4- . 2, 6,9
State Law, See. 50, 52 and 53 3
General Minie ‘ipal Law, Sect. 210, 211, 212 4
Article I, Sect. 8, USS. ¢ oustitution, Clauses. 1, 7, 17,

-18 : : ‘ => 10
Act of ¢ ‘ongress of Fr ehruary Ast, 1928, 45 Stat. 540 - 6,8
Dac edent’s Estate Law, Sec. 130 . ; ae

ros

SAREE ea eS:

Ee NG ek RS OO EA eS

—

REPEL cepa Gee bah ate SII BOI

aa

awe

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ~*
| OCTOBER TERM, 1939 es

No. 251

JAMES STEWART & COG INC., . ‘
aaa Appellant,
= {ppellar
- KATHERINE SADRAKULA, as AbMINISTRATRIX OF THE .
Goops, CHATTELS AND Crepirs Wuicu Were or NICHOLAS
SaDRAKULA, DECEASED.

APPEAL FLOM THE SURREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

: Ae

| STATEMENT OPPOSING JURISDICTION AND ~
"MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM.

*

Preliminary Statement

Appellee is the widow of one Nicholas: Sadrakula, who
died on October 24, 1935, as a-result of injuries sustained
that day when he fell from the first to the basement floor -
While working as a rigger in connection with the construe:
tion of a Post Office Building in the City of New York.

>

)

_

Appellant ‘was tke general contractor, under :an agree.
ment with tie Treasury Department dated November 9,

1934 (18° 121). Decedent's employer, a sub-contractor,”
ix “2, B. 118) undertook to install certain hoisting -

equipment. 2 . ‘
The steel somsteuetien had been fully completed and de-

~cedent was supervising the installation of guide rafls ina.”

**bay’’- designated: by the appellant. By a ‘‘bay’’ was
nieant the area between four upright steel columns, being
30’ long and 20’ wide. The ‘‘bay’’? was divided by two

parallel cross girders thus creating three equal panels 30’ |

long and 6!’ wide. . ;
It was within the center mana that the rails had been
‘justalled for the purpose of guiding the ‘“bucket’’ in ascent
‘und-descent to various floors in the building.

The actual space réasonably required for the installation .
of, the guide rails and the bucket was less than 60 square
1

inches.

The’ photographs (Ex. 1 and 2, R. 116, 117) show the

-gnide rails and ‘the sr within the center panel of the
bay.
. In looking at the photographs, North is to the left-and
South to the right. The nearer guide rail was called the
‘west rail”. , |
Appellant conceded that at no time did it attempt to slag
over any part of the bay and the area to the west of the
cuide rails was unguarded.
The evidence established that Sadrakula fell- backwards
through this unguarded space. To the absence of . the
planking required by Section 241 subd. 4-of the Labor Law,’
his death was attributed. (Decision by Mr. Justice Lewis;
R. 122. “os :

HT references are to pages of the printed case on appeal in the Court
f Appeals, which appellant is filing with the Clerk of this Court.
‘Appendix, p. 15.

gene ray eR

ys a ees Page are

‘3

\ P
Upoht the trial, appellant rested at the end of appellee’s ~
‘proof. .The jury was waived and the Court found for ap- }
pellee. That determination has. been unanimously affirmed
- by the.Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court

and the Court of Appeals. 3 ,

The basis of the present appeal rests.upon the conten-
_ tion of appellant, as certified below, that a Federal quéstion

was necessarily, passed upon. =A

In answer to all of appellant’s contentions, appe ee re-
_spectfully submits a statement of matter and grounds mak-

ing against the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme
Court as follows: ,

I —$$_—$_

There is no Federal Question Involved.
The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court to entertain
this appeal exists only if a Federal question is tt al

from the reeord. ’
Mellon v. O'Neill, 275 U. S. 212, 72 L. Ea. 245.

It cannot be supplied by an assignment of errors.
“Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127, 45 L. Ed. 119.

Appellee contends that there i is no Federal question In-
volved because although the United States purchased the
enclave before decedent met his death, it did not obtain
“exclusive jurisdiction’? thereof, until several months
later. (R. Stipulation pgs, 17 ¢ 1-18). .

By this stipulation (supra) it was agr eed that the United-
States purchased the property in 1931. and. filed certified
copies of the’record or transfer of the property, in the of-
fice of the Secretary of State on December 26th, 1935-(R.
17, 18),

Decedent met his death on Oetober 24th, 1935 (R. 18).

_Appellant states ‘‘exclusive jurisdiction thereof was
ceded to the United States by Consolidated Laws, Chapter
57, Section 50, 53 (State Law, Secs. 50, 53)’’. |

Pi oe
We do not kitiow why it ‘omitted Section 52.of the same
law because it is only by reason, thereof that. ‘‘exclusive |
jurisdiction’? was ceded. As the enclavé in question was
also within the confines of the City of New York, Sees. 210,
211 and 212 of the General Municipal Law (Consolidated.
Laws of 1909, Chap. 29)? also apply? Both See. 52 of
the State Law and See. 211 of the General Muasicipal Law,
provides that ‘texclusive jurisdiction’’ is ceded-by the State
to the United States upon the filing of certified copies of:
the record or transfer with the Secretary o1 the State of
. New York. :
The stipulation: (R. 18) follows the language of See. 211
of thegGeneral Municipal Law and it appears therefrom
that such filing did not take place. until two months after
decedent's death. ;
Statutes relinquishing jurisdiction are strictly construed .
since it is of the greatest importance to o. both national and
state governments. oe
Larson v. South Diakeia, 278 U. S. 429, 73 L. Ed. 441.

* When land is:ceded by a State to the United States, the
extent of Federal jurisdiction sa daa upon the terms of
the act of cession.
Atkinson v. State Tax Commission, 62 P. (2nd) 13,
aff'd. 803 U.S. 20,82 L. Ed. (adv.) 440.
Silas Mason Co, 'v. Far Commission of Washington,
302 U.S. 186, 82 L.Ed: (adv.) 154, 159.
Ft. Leavenworth Ry. Co. v; Lowe, 114 U. 8. 525, 537.

Although appellant omits “any diseussion of this point,
it is well aware of its signifiean’e because at page 10 of its
oe : , t

brief, under sub. *F."" it SAYS:

.
e
P ws assiag =A Sn PN aE Oe, a es a. Sin’ pti ae as a ee ey ss les 4

Se

15

= APPENDIX.
s+ : ray
Lanok Law or THE Strate or New York, Section 241, sub-
division 4 (Consolidated Laws of New York, Chapter 31,
Section 241). °.

‘PROTECTION OF, EMPLOYEES ON BUIL LD:
ING CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION WORK.
~All contractors and owners, when constructing or de-
molishing buildings, shall comply’ with the following
requirements: * %. *° ?

4. If the floor beains are of tron or steel, the entire tier
_of iron or steel beams on which the structural iron or
steel work is being erected shall be thoroughiy planked
over to net Jess'than six feet beyond such beams, except
| spaices reasonably required for proper construction of
the iron or-steel work, for raising. or lowering of ma-
terial or for stairwitys: and elevator shafts designated
hy the plans and spee ‘ifieations.’

Gbsena. Me NICIPAL ee OF THE STATE oF NEW York, See-
tion QUT AU ‘ontsolidate d Laws of 1909, Chapter 29).

“Section 21 CER TIFIE D COPY OF TRANSFER TO
BE FILED, Whenever the United States, by any agent
authorized under the hand and seal of any }ead of an
executive departinent of the government of the United
States, shal cause to be filed and recorded in the office
of the seeretary of state of this state, cert fied copies of
the record or transfer to the Unjted States of any such
pieces of land which had been acquired | by the United
States for the purposes specified in section two hundred
and ten of this article, together*with maps and descrip-
tions of such Jands by metes and bounds, exclusive juris-
diction, except as provided in section two hundred and
twelve, is thereupon ceded to the United States over
“the Ignds so described,.during the time that the United
- States shall be or remain the owner thereof’’.

16

Acr or Concress of Frepruary Ist, 1928, 45 Srar: 54° (16
“U.S. C.A., Section 457).
‘Action for dvath or personal injury within national
park or other place under jurisdiction of United States;
application of state law." In the case of the death of
any person by the neglect or wrongful’ act of another
Withiaa a national park or other place subject to the ex-
clusive jurisdiction of the United States, within. the
exterior boundaries of any state, such wight of action
shall exist as though the place: were under the juris-
diction of the state within whose exterior boundaries
such place may be; * * °.’’

(2928)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0247%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.