196 U. S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

and should be so construed as to prevent the mischief and advance the remedy. C., M. & St. P. R. R. v. Voelker, 129 Fed. Rep. 522; Wall v. Platt, 48 N. E. Rep. 270; Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U. S. 457; Potter's Dwarris on Statutes, 234; Brady v. Daly, 175 U. S. 156; Reed v. Northfield, 13 Pick. 94; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 665; United States v. Lacher, 5 Wheat. 76; Am. Fur Co. v. United States, 2 Pet. 358; United States v. Morris, 14 Pet. 464; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385; United States v. Winn, 3 Sumn. 209; United States v. Mattock, 2 Sawy. 148.

So construing the law, the word "car" must be held to be used in section 2 of said act in a generic sense and as embracing a locomotive or a tender as well as the other cars composing a train. This view is, moreover, sustained by definitions. in the standard dictionaries and also by decisions of the courts. Fleming v. Southern R. R., 131 N. Car. 476; East St. Louis R. R. v. O'Hara, 150 Illinois, 580; K. C., M. & B. R. R. v. Crocker, 9 Alabama, 412; Thomas v. Ga. R. R., 38 Georgia, 222; New York v. Third Avenue R. R., 117 N. Y. 444, 646; Benson v. Railraod Co., 75 Minnesota, 163.

Locomotives and tenders fall within the reason of the law, as injury to or loss of life or limb of employés is as likely to occur in coupling or uncoupling a locomotive or tender as in case of cars of other descriptions. Winkler v. P. & R. R. R., 53 Atl. Rep. 90; S. C., 4 Pennywell, 384.

Even though the locomotive or tender is not to be construed as a car, under sec. 2, the dining car was not equipped so as to couple automatically by impact with the vehicle it was intended to be coupled with, and was therefore not equipped as required by the act of Congress. B. & O. R. R. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 378; Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691.

The history of the act of Congress shows that its purpose was not to require cars to be maintained in a condition of equipment with automatic couplers, but rather to govern the equipments only at such times as it was necessary to couple them together. 5th Annual R. Inter. Com. Comm., 1891,

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

196 U. S.

JOHNSON brought this action in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Utah against the Southern Pacific Company to recover damages for injuries received while employed by that company as a brakeman. The case was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Utah by defendant on the ground of diversity of citizenship.

The facts were briefly these: August 5, 1900, Johnson was acting as head brakeman on a freight train of the Southern Pacific Company, which was making its regular trip between San Francisco, California, and Ogden, Utah. On reaching the town of Promontory, Utah, Johnson was directed to uncouple the engine from the train and couple it to a dining car, belonging to the company, which was standing on a side track, for the purpose of turning the car around preparatory to its being picked up and put on the next west-bound passenger train. The engine and the dining car were equipped, respectively, with the Janney coupler and the Miller hook, so called, which would not couple together automatically by impact, and it was, therefore, necessary for Johnson, and he was ordered, to go between the engine and the dining car, to accomplish the coupling. In so doing Johnson's hand was caught between the engine bumper and the dining car bumper and crushed, which necessitated amputation of the hand above the wrist.

On the trial of the case, defendant, after plaintiff had rested, moved the court to instruct the jury to find in its favor, which motion was granted, and the jury found a verdict accordingly, on which judgment was entered. Plaintiff carried the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the judgment was affirmed. 117 Fed. Rep. 462.

Mr. W. L. Maginnis, with whom Mr. L. A. Shaver and Mr. John M. Gitterman were on the brief, for petitioner and plaintiff in error:

The act of Congress of March 2, 1893, in as far as it aims to protect the lives and limbs of men, is remedial in its character,

196 U. S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

and should be so construed as to prevent the mischief and advance the remedy. C., M. & St. P. R. R. v. Voelker, 129 Fed. Rep. 522; Wall v. Platt, 48 N. E. Rep. 270; Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U. S. 457; Potter's Dwarris on Statutes, 234; Brady v. Daly, 175 U. S. 156; Reed v. Northfield, 13 Pick. 94; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 665; United States v. Lacher, 5 Wheat. 76; Am. Fur Co. v. United States, 2 Pet. 358; United States v. Morris, 14 Pet. 464; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385; United States v. Winn, 3 Sumn. 209; United States v. Mattock, 2 Sawy. 148.

So construing the law, the word "car" must be held to be used in section 2 of said act in a generic sense and as embracing a locomotive or a tender as well as the other cars composing a train. This view is, moreover, sustained by definitions in the standard dictionaries and also by decisions of the courts. Fleming v. Southern R. R., 131 N. Car. 476; East St. Louis R. R. v. O'Hara, 150 Illinois, 580; K. C., M. & B. R. R. v. Crocker, 9 Alabama, 412; Thomas v. Ga. R. R., 38 Georgia, 222; New York v. Third Avenue R. R., 117 N. Y. 444, 646; Benson v. Railraod Co., 75 Minnesota, 163.

Locomotives and tenders fall within the reason of the law, as injury to or loss of life or limb of employés is as likely to occur in coupling or uncoupling a locomotive or tender as in case of cars of other descriptions. Winkler v. P. & R. R. R., 53 Atl. Rep. 90; S. C., 4 Pennywell, 384.

Even though the locomotive or tender is not to be construed as a car, under sec. 2, the dining car was not equipped so as to couple automatically by impact with the vehicle it was intended to be coupled with, and was therefore not equipped as required by the act of Congress. B. & O. R. R. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 378; Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691.

The history of the act of Congress shows that its purpose was not to require cars to be maintained in a condition of equipment with automatic couplers, but rather to govern the equipments only at such times as it was necessary to couple them together. 5th Annual R. Inter. Com. Comm., 1891,

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

196 U.S.

JOHNSON brought this action in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Utah against the Southern Pacific Company to recover damages for injuries received while employed by that company as a brakeman. The case was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Utah by defendant on the ground of diversity of citizenship.

The facts were briefly these: August 5, 1900, Johnson was acting as head brakeman on a freight train of the Southern Pacific Company, which was making its regular trip between San Francisco, California, and Ogden, Utah. On reaching the town of Promontory, Utah, Johnson was directed to uncouple the engine from the train and couple it to a dining car, belonging to the company, which was standing on a side track, for the purpose of turning the car around preparatory to its being picked up and put on the next west-bound passenger train. The engine and the dining car were equipped, respectively, with the Janney coupler and the Miller hook, so called, which would not couple together automatically by impact, and it was, therefore, necessary for Johnson, and he was ordered, to go between the engine and the dining car, to accomplish the coupling. In so doing Johnson's hand was caught between the engine bumper and the dining car bumper and crushed, which necessitated amputation of the hand above the wrist.

On the trial of the case, defendant, after plaintiff had rested, moved the court to instruct the jury to find in its favor, which motion was granted, and the jury found a verdict accordingly, on which judgment was entered. Plaintiff carried the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the judgment was affirmed. 117 Fed. Rep. 462.

Mr. W. L. Maginnis, with whom Mr. L. A. Shaver and Mr. John M. Gitterman were on the brief, for petitioner and plaintiff in error:

The act of Congress of March 2, 1893, in as far as it aims to protect the lives and limbs of men, is remedial in its character,

196 U. S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

and should be so construed as to prevent the mischief and advance the remedy. C., M. & St. P. R. R. v. Voelker, 129 Fed. Rep. 522; Wall v. Platt, 48 N. E. Rep. 270; Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U. S. 457; Potter's Dwarris on Statutes, 234; Brady v. Daly, 175 U. S. 156; Reed v. Northfield, 13 Pick. 94; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 665; United States v. Lacher, 5 Wheat. 76; Am. Fur Co. v. United States, 2 Pet. 358; United States v. Morris, 14 Pet. 464; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385; United States v. Winn, 3 Sumn. 209; United States v. Mattock, 2 Sawy. 148.

So construing the law, the word "car" must be held to be used in section 2 of said act in a generic sense and as embracing a locomotive or a tender as well as the other cars composing a train. This view is, moreover, sustained by definitions in the standard dictionaries and also by decisions of the courts. Fleming v. Southern R. R., 131 N. Car. 476; East St. Louis R. R. v. O'Hara, 150 Illinois, 580; K. C., M. & B. R. R. v. Crocker, 9 Alabama, 412; Thomas v. Ga. R. R., 38 Georgia, 222; New York v. Third Avenue R. R., 117 N. Y. 444, 646; Benson v. Railraod Co., 75 Minnesota, 163.

Locomotives and tenders fall within the reason of the law, as injury to or loss of life or limb of employés is as likely to occur in coupling or uncoupling a locomotive or tender as in case of cars of other descriptions. Winkler v. P. & R. R. R., 53 Atl. Rep. 90; S. C., 4 Pennywell, 384.

Even though the locomotive or tender is not to be construed as a car, under sec. 2, the dining car was not equipped so as to couple automatically by impact with the vehicle it was intended to be coupled with, and was therefore not equipped as required by the act of Congress. B. & O. R. R. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 378; Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691.

The history of the act of Congress shows that its purpose was not to require cars to be maintained in a condition of equipment with automatic couplers, but rather to govern the equipments only at such times as it was necessary to couple them together. 5th Annual R. Inter. Com. Comm., 1891,