GOODLETT V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD, 122 U. S. 391 (1887)Subscribe to Cases that cite 122 U. S. 391
U.S. Supreme Court
Goodlett v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, 122 U.S. 391 (1887)
Goodlett v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad, 122 U.S. 391 (1887)
Argued April 4, 1887
Decided May 27, 1887
122 U.S. 391
The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company is a corporation of Kentucky, and not of Tennessee, having from the latter state only a license to construct a railroad within its limits, between certain points, and to exert there some of its corporate powers.
The rule announced in Phoenix Insurance Company v. Doster, 106 U. S. 32, and in Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 111 U. S. 482, as to when a case may be withdrawn from a jury by a peremptory instruction, reaffirmed.
This action was brought in the Circuit Court of Williamson County, Tennessee, by Simon Callahan, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while in the discharge chanrobles.com-red
of his duties as section foreman on a railroad between Nashville, Tennessee, and Decatur, Alabama, which at the time, was operated by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. The declaration alleged that the defendant was a corporation created by the Legislature of Tennessee, and that the injuries complained of were caused by the negligence and carelessness of that company, its servants and agents. In due time, the defendant filed its petition, accompanied by bond in proper form, for the removal of the action into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee -- alleging that the plaintiff was a citizen of Tennessee -- alleging that the plaintiff was a citizen of Tennessee, and that the defendant was a citizen of Kentucky, having its principal place of business in that commonwealth. The state court made an order recognizing the right of removal and declaring that no further proceedings be had therein in said suit.
In the circuit court, a motion to remand the cause to the state court -- the ground of such motion being that the defendant was a corporation of Tennessee, and therefore a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff -- was denied. To that action of the court an exception was taken.
Upon the trial of the case, the court gave a peremptory instruction to find for the defendant. It also refused to give the instructions asked in behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued out this writ of error. chanrobles.com-red