Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co.
279 U.S. 377 (1929)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 279 U.S. 377 (1929)

Douglas v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company

No. 312

Argued January 16, 1929

Reargued April 15, 16, 1929

Decided May 13, 1929

279 U.S. 377

Syllabus

1. In determining whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, or an Act of Congress, is contravened by a state statute, the purport established for the state statute by the highest court of the state is accepted here. P. 279 U. S. 385.

2. Where a state law is susceptible of two constructions, one of which might put it in conflict with the Federal Constitution, it is to be presumed that the other construction, rendering it valid, would be adopted by the state courts. P. 279 U. S. 386.

3. In § 1780 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure, under which, as locally construed, actions by nonresidents against foreign corporations doing business in the state are subject to dismissal at the discretion of the court, the term "nonresident" should be interpreted as embracing citizens of the state who do not actually live in the state at the time of bringing such actions. P. 279 U. S. 386.

4. A state law under which citizens of the state who actually reside there have the right to maintain actions in the state courts against foreign corporations doing business there on causes of action arising from foreign torts, but under which such actions, when brought by nonresidents, whether citizens of that state or of other states, are subject to dismissal at the discretion of the court, makes a distinction based on rational considerations, and does not violate the privileges and immunities clause, Art. IV, § 2, of the Constitution. P. 279 U. S. 387.

5. The Federal Employers' Liability Act does not purport to require state courts to entertain actions under it as against an otherwise valid excuse under the state law. P. 279 U. S. 387.

248 N.Y. 580 affirmed.

Certiorari, 278 U.S. 590, to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of New York, entered on a rescript from the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of an action

Page 279 U. S. 378

brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. See also 223 App.Div. (N.Y.) 782. The Attorney General of New York was given leave to file a brief and take part in the reargument because of the importance of the case.

Page 279 U. S. 385

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.