*1 TERM, ,1907. Syllabus.
the tax laws we are the conclusion to constrained does not afford that due system law which process notice and to be adjudges upon opportunity heard, was the intention Fourteenth Amendment protect by state against impairment action.
The Court are judgments reversed Georgia
and the cases remanded not incon- proceedings further for sistent with this opinion.
CHAMBERS v. AND BALTIMORE RAILROAD OHIO
COMPANY. THE ERROR TO SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO. Argued 18, 17, 18, 1907. No. 22. October Decided November1907. jurisdiction This judgment court has to review the on writ of error under 709, Stat., opinion highest clearly § Rev. of the State question issue, shows that the Federal to- was assumed be decided adversely, and the decision was essential rendered. sue and defend in the courts of the States is one of comprehended immunities 2 of IV § Art. of the Constitution of States, equality the United regard of treatment thereto does not depend upon comity States, between granted protected but is provision Constitution; subject, however, to. restrictions imposed operate that instrument that the By limitations must way on its own same citizens and on those other States. The policy may jurisdiction State’s own determine the its courts and the character of the controversies which shall be heard therein. providing The statute of Ohio of 1902 no action can maintained the courts of that occurring in another State ex- cept operating where the deceased was a citizen of the restriction equally they upon representatives deceased citizens of whether immunity Ohio or privilege pro- of other violate does not vision of Federal Constitution. St. 73 Ohio affirmed. The facts are stated in opinion. & OHIO BALTIMORE R. R. Error. Argument for Plaintiff in
n with whom Mr. R. Jr., B. Murray Koonce, Mr. Charles brief, plaintiff were in error : S. Anderson Mr. W. *2 action transitory to maintain a citizen of
The right States, the United courts of a States of sister of the one of and immunities one comprehended State, (cid:127) Constitution of the United 2 Art. IV of the States. Cor of by § C. C. Ward v. 12 371-380; 4 Wash. Coryell, Maryland, v. field U. S. 430; Cunningham, v. 133 Blake 107-114; Cole Wall. 239-256; 172 Moredock v. 118 Fed. U. S. McClung, Kirby, v. Wall. 180-182; Virginia, 168-180; Paul v. 8 Rep. Cofrode Railroad Co. 332-343; Hendricks, 79 v. Cartner, v. Michigan, & 48; Youngstown v. Sheet Tube Indiana, Co., 41 Schell 26 v. 73 209; 245; C. C. State Hoad Reps; Cadigan, Vermont, O. Commissioners, Florida, 564; v. Insurance 37 S. L. ley C., 33 Roby Smith, 342; 131 Shirk 388; Indiana, R. A. v. Lafayette 857; Farmers’ &c. v. Railroad Rep. Co., 52 Fed. Co. 27 Fed. C., 5 39 R. A. 146; Duckworth, Idaho, 642; State v. S. L. Rep. with the main- comity
While doctrine reference of an as the citizens of different tenance action between applies and the citizens of nations and the nations, foreign between it is not the several States the United foundation of the States rest which the citizens their right several of sister The foundation of that courts invoking States. immunity the Federal provision is the privilege right not within of either and it is the power legislature Constitution theory on the pretended annul a constitutional or court only comity is.subject exists to.the rules the right that con- comity than those rather governing principles constitutional trol guarantees. by the Court is not saved holding The statute and; equal next kin have rights, non-resident
of Ohio as to them, resident next open equally Ohio the courts whose death is' person only wrongful kin, provided his a citizen of was at the action, time subject Ohio. act, construed, as effect real purpose The TERM, 1907..
Argument
Defendant
Error.
in favor of citizens of
to discriminate
Ohio and
citi-
against
States. Theoretical
of other
save it
exceptions
zens
cannot
provision
the ban
constitutional
from
herein in question.
statute,
construed,
The
is a denial of the
citizens of a sister State to have the cause of action resulting
enforced in favor
act
of his
wife and children.
of Ohio cannot forbid
citizens of other States from
in its
courts,
enjoyed
its own
suing
right being
people.
Eingartner
Company,
v. Steel
Wisconsin, 70-78; Blake v.
In order that
the statement
it is
the public
against,
.that
of the State of Ohio to
in its courts a cause of
policy
enforce
of a
of another
favor
citizen
State can
avail, must
first
that it would be
appear
public policy of said
to enforce a like cause of action in
favor of a citizen of
its
or.a like cause
own
of action
own
State.
arising
*3
'The only
which can be attached
qualification
right
to’
such'non-resident
maintain his action in the courts of a
sister State is that the character of the
of action must
cause
not be
the actual
against
public policy
the State.
And,
a court in
justify
to enforce
refusing
of action
right
accruing
under the laws of another State because
against, the'policy
must,
the laws of the-forum, it
appear, that it is against good
morals or natural justice.
v.
Huntington Attrill,
U. S. 657,
cited;
cases there
Stewart v. B. & O. R. Co.,
R.
817; Davidow Railroad Company, 193; 85 Fed. Rep. Van Dorn v. Railroad Company, C. C. A. 282; Wilson v. Tootle, 55 Fed. Walsh Rep. 211; v. Railroad Company, 160 Massachu setts, 571; Burns v. Railroad Company, Indiana,
Mr. George Arrel, F. with whom P. Mr. James Wilson and Mr. John G. Wilson were on the in brief, for defendant error: n Thisstatute between, no creates discrimination the citizens 'Ohio of any State. Under its provisions
CHAMBERS v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. Argument in Defendant Error. it only essential to the maintenance the action to enforce in the courts of right Ohio, the' decedent shall have been, death, at the time of his a citizen of Ohio. If the bene- ficiary under the statute of the State, giving and in right, which tñe act took wrongful place, the death resulted, to be a happens citizen of the right secured by- toe stat- ute could not be in enforced the courts of Ohio.
Unless an act of the state
legislature
fact, and in some
way discriminates as to the
in question
between its citi-
zens and citizens'of another State, such act does not offend
provision
the Federal Constitution. Paul v.
8 Wall.
Virginia,
180; Slaughter House Cases,
The of the herein clearly decision Court of Ohio determines and establishes the public the State of policy Ohio this and upon subject, so public policy, determined established, clearly and is the result not only of legislative
VOL. ccvii—10 TERM, 146 Opinion of the Court. decision. This judicial clearly subject but of enactment, by its and judicial a State legislative departments which own Texas & Co. v. public policy. Ry. its may establish Pacific Stewart’s Admr. v. B. & 829; Co., O. R. R. Cox, . 5 U. S. 44 may statute not be If, enforced a State then, foreign directly opposed whose of the State policy policy the death under the doctrine of occurred, wherein the Stewart in this no Supreme Court, case and other cases or privilege to this immunity has been denied citizen the State of Penn- sylvania. Moody delivered the opinion
Mk. Justice the court. This is a writ of error directed to Supreme Court of the error plaintiff State of Ohio. is the widow of E. Henry while in. the of the defendant iri Chambers, who, employ error and as a locomotive engaged performance of engineer from which duty, injuries his received he shortly afterwards died. wife were at Both husband and the time of the injuries Pennsylvania, and death citizens of and the .wife has since to be such. The injuries continued death occurred in Pennsylvania. The widow an action, Court of brought Pleas of the State of Common defendant that the railroad, injuries were caused alleging negligence. she In action to recover sought under certain damages that’ Constitution and laws of parts Pennsylvania printed provided for margin,1 recovery of damages 15, 18.51, Sections 18 and April of the act follows, Pennsyl- are as Laws, 1851, p.- 674: “Sec. 18. No vania brought action hereafter to re- damages injuries person cover by negligence for default, shall abate reason of of the plaintiff; the death personal but representatives plaintiff, deceased be substituted prosecute the suit final Sec. 19. satisfaction. Whenever death shall be occa- negligence, sioned unlawful violence damages no suit for brought by party injured, during life, the. his or any her the widow of deceased, widow, personal be no or if there representatives, may main- an recover tain the death thus occasioned.” *5 BALTIMORE & R. CHAMBERS v. OHIO R. 147 Opinion of the Court. 207 The had a vérdict and for death. in the plaintiff of Common Pleas, which, by petition error, Court to an intermediate case was removed first then to Court of the State. There it was insisted Supreme by the defendant action could not be that maintained in the of Court sustained this courts Ohio. The Supreme contention, of the court and entered below, reversed the judgments judg A of statute Ohio that provided ment for the defendant. “ this State has been or bemay the death a citizen whenever of of default in State, another act, a wrongful neglect caused which a an for maintain territory, country, or foreign right thereof is aby respect action and recover damages.in territory country, of such State, foreign statute such other be enforced this State within time of action action by for commencement of such the stat prescribed country.” There territory or foreign ute of such other on the The statutory subject. provision was no other for a action authorized this statute déath Court held that when the death only State was another occurring .was common law of the State forbade that the Ohio; a citizen whose person, and that as the action; such the ac was not a citizen case, demanded were the case here writ lie. The plaintiff brings tion would and the judg thus construed statute error, alleging follows, 26, 1855, Pennsylvania April as the act Sections damages'for persons recover 1856, The entitled to Laws, p. “Séc. 1. 309': husband, widow, parents children or death,- causing shall be any injury go relative, shall deceased, and the sum recovered no other of in-r personal estate case they his or her take proportion them declaration liability to creditors. Sec. testacy, without and that action; action shall be in such parties entitled who are shall state 21, By section and not thereafter.” the death year after brought within one 1874, it is .Pennsylvania of the State III, of the constitution article Assembly shall General act of the 21. No follows, wit: “Sec. provided death, in- or for injuries .resulting in recovered to be the amount limit injuries of death from in case property, person or juries to whose Assembly prescribe for shall General survive, shall prosecuted.” shall such actions benefit TERM, 1907. U. S. Opinion the Court. 2, section IV, violates Article construction ment based upon of the United of the Constitution paragraph *6 “ to all be entitled shall The citizens of each State provides States.” the several of citizens immunities and privileges considera our only question the presents This allegation tion. to reexamine jurisdiction to our objects defendant
The was not properly Federal question because judgment clearly But it courts of State. raised seasonably of the Supreme from the opinion unmistakably appears in issue, was assumed to be question Federal Court that and that claim of Federal right, was decided against essential to the rendered. the question decision to reexamine authority this court to give is This enough Com San José Land & Water writ error. that question Haire 177; Ranch 189 U. S. v. Company, José v. San pany S. 291. 204 U. Rice, funda- merits of the case there are some
In decision mental, which are of effect. controlling principles In alternative of force-. an courts is the sue and defend in. of all is conservative society rights, it the right organized It orderly is one the foundation of government. lies at .and citizenship, essential privileges most of the highest each to the citizens of all other States by allowed State must be allowed to its own extent citizens. precise to the in this left to depend upon of treatment respect Equality but is between comity granted protected Constitution. v. Wash. C. C. Coryell, the Federal Corfield Ward v. J.; Maryland, 418, Wall. Washington, 371, 380, per J.; 107, Cole v. Clifford, Cunningham, 114, 133 U. S. 430, per Blake J.; S. McClung, 252, per C. U. Fuller, per J. Harlan, Constitution, restrictions of the Federal
But, subject its determine the limits of the may jurisdiction the State which- shall be and the character controversies courts, what policy The state decides whether and to in them. heard v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. Opinion of the Court. extent the will entertain courts transitory actions, where the causes of action have arisen other jurisdictions. havé may different Different policies and the same State have different at may policies different any times. But policy choose to must adopt the State operate the same way on its own citizens and those other States. The privileges which it affords to one class it must afford to the Any other: law which actions in the courts begin are given to its own citizens and. withheld from the citizens of other States is conflict with void, because supreme law the land.
The law of Ohio must be to the test of brought these funda- mental from the principles. appears decision under review (and need no other authority) we the common law of had the courts no jurisdiction to entertain actions *7 to recover death where the cause of action arose of other under the laws States or countries. This rule was in its The application. universal of the citizenship persons or of who the person whose brought death a remedy If was was immaterial. the death was caused outside sought of action the State and arose right under laws foreign were1 its courts impartially closed to all persons remedy, entirely a irrespective their seeking citizenship. however, was modified law, by The common which, statute became statute under amended, consideration here. courts were By jurisdiction this statute over certain given while the common law description, actions of this was left to A others. discrimination was thus control all introduced into The discrimination of the State. was based on solely the law The courts were open citizenship deceased. if who were citizens of other States the de- cases to -plaintiffs were who Ohio; they plaintiffs a citizen closed ceased was if the was a deceased citizen of another were citizens of Ohio concerned, parties far as the litigation State. So made based on citizen- laws no discrimination by the State to- citizens of and offered same ship, precisely TERM, 15Ó Opinion of the Court. which it other States allowed to its own. There is, therefore, at least literal conformity with the requirements of the Con- ' stitution. But it be hand, the other urged, that the conformity is only that the death action superficial; may be by the law to the killed, at the foreign person instant when he was vivus mortuus, et and made to survive and to his pass represen- (Higgins Railroad, 155 Massachusetts, 176); that tatives in such is cases it of action of the right deceased which is into court those who have brought byit survivorship; that, as the test of jurisdiction citizenship person in whom the right originally vested, the ac- .action iyas tion entertained a citizen person of Ohio and de- clined if he awas of another State, there is a real and citizen substantial sense a discrimination forbidden Constitu- tion. If such a case should arise, and be denied in the Ohio hearing
n courts the Ohio law, then as the denial would be based upon of that citizenship person whom the of action vested, originally might necessary to consider Whether law did the Ohio not' in substance to Ohio grant privileges which it withheld from citizens States. But such case is no before Pennsylvania us. The statute, which created the of action to be enforced the Ohio sought has been courts, construed by the courts of Pennsylvania. section is section applicable 19 of the act of 1851. Of it court said in Fink Pennsylvania v. Garman. 40 Pa. St. 103: *8 was
“The 18th section apparently intended to regulate of action, by common law right to it securing survivorship; was the 19th section creative of but a new of action, cause to unknown law. And wholly of action .the common was not to the person since no man suffering injury, his death, for his own but to widow or personal could sue rep- resentative. It was of the cause of action survivorship section, meant to but provide which the legislature & R. v. BALTIMORE OHIO R. McKenna, JJ., dissenting. Harlan, White S.U. in favor of a surviving cause action of an original the creation or personal representative.” uidow Mann v. Weiand the act. interpretation is settled
This 427; Railroad Pa. St. Bock, v. 243; Pennsylvania St. 81½Pa. Pennsylvania 299; McCafferty 21 Pa. C. C. Estate, Engle's that therefore, clearly,(cid:127) It appears 193 Pa. St. 339. Railroad, to enforce which the plaintiff sought of action cause in her. She pne originally for her benefit vested created she is not courts because to the Ohio denied access has not been of action which the cause but because of that a citizen would have courts. She those she is not cognizable presents if reason for the same of the same cause been denied hearing pf cause In her of Ohio. excluding she had been a citizen her influenced not been law of Ohio has the courts are unable immaterial. We regarded citizenship, which any refused has been case the plaintiff to in this see that her, confers upon of the United States which the Constitution the judgment an'd accordingly
Affirmed. Holmes, concurring. Mb. Justice dp from the of the judgment, I not dissent reasoning
Although rest, on the proposition my agreement I to prefer it does not operate as it purports operate statute cannot presumed to mean operate that it can I do not think all. at the-Constitution to sue in case a right all -persons give .forbids.it; it attempts. more'limited grant to make S. Co., Apart 184 U. Pipe Sewer v. Union Connolly maintain an action like this one can from the statute-no any- I there is do not understand that 1' add Ohio. as to the law. my that contradicts opinion in the judgment thing Justice (with whom concurred Hablan Justice Mb. Mb. McKenna)) dissenting. Mb. Justice White-and Chambers, Elizabeth M. citizen error, The plaintiff the Baltimore and this action Pennsylvania, sought *9 TERM, 1907. 152 JJ., McKenna, dissenting. Hablan, White Ma- Pleas in the Common Court Company Railroad Ohio her to recover- account County, honing in in 1902—his death Pennsylvania having husband’s death by the defendant was caused, alleged, negligence been Pennsyl- of its in while a line part railroad company operating into due by company was court brought vania. The railroad verdict there a in a was trial summons, resulting service dollars. favor of the for three plaintiff in thousand and judgment Court case carried writ error Circuit was That affirmed. and the was there County Mahoning judgment Court was by of affirmance reversed judgment to enter railroad of Ohio with directions (cid:127) company. favor Pennsylvania That the laws of a in action, give right “ death is un- by
of the widow of a deceased whose occasioned lawful or is not negligence,” disputed. equally violence It is is plaintiff’s cause of action but clear not local present and, nature, in its main- transitory can be speaking generally, tained in where the found any jurisdiction may be wrongdoer the court. Dennick Railroad Com- be before brought v. B. & R. R. Co., Stewart O. 11; pany, U. S. U. S. (1902) a By statute of Ohio force when this action was . it was that “whenever the provided death of a citi- brought, has been may by zen this State or be caused a act, wrongful or in another territory default or neglect foreign country, maintain for which an action and recover damages by respect thereof statute of such other State, country, territory, or such of action foreign en- within forced' this State the time prescribed the com- mencement of such of such the statute other State, territory country.” 95 O. L. 401. foreign By a previous (1894) statute of that kind suits were allowed in Ohio when was aby act, caused negligence default another suits were allowed in the State where the But that statute, death occurred. stated act case, above of 1902. So that repealed & OHIO R. R. v. BALTIMORE McKenna, dissenting. Harlan, JJ.. White act of 1902 that the case, changed held court, present *10 It with dispenses “1. particulars: law in two essential former occurs in which the death wrongful that the State the condition of this State like char- in its courts the statute shall enforce to maintain therein 2. in terms limits the right acter. in another death occurring State for an action wrongful of Ohio, death of citizens for to actions State, causing without 6134a such right section gave whereas the original citizenship.” or Again, limitation restriction and effect the pro- then to the scope said: “Having regard and to the character amended, special visions of the section it clear that we think made, legislature, of the amendments 6134a act 1902], of amended section by the adoption [the restrict the to limit and thereby’ undertook and intended a for death oc- courts of this State wrongful to recover in the where cases killed person to those in another curring That citizen of Ohio.” there of his a death, at the time was, I the official decision, syl- quote as to the be no mistake law of is to which, case labus of the present “No action actually judgment: the point taken as indicating of this State a cause of upon in the courts can be maintained in another State, except death occurring action for wrongful a citizen killed was the State where the- person wrongfully Ohio.” 73 Ohio St. in this case for final that the
It thus appears the distinct ground rests company railroad of that State, under the statute cannot, take courts of Ohio on account of death oc- damages, of an cognizance and caused by act, State neglect in another curring killed where the was a person wrongfully except or default, one a if two citizen of persons, In that view, citizen of Ohio. of Pennsylvania, traveling together a citizen Ohio and the killed at both be the same Pennsylvania, should on a railroad in con- circumstances, the same precisely moment under of the railroad or default company, sequence negligence its statute closed, are suit against any the courts of Ohio mi. TERM, Hablan, McKenna, JJ., dissenting.’ White 207U. S. widow or brought’ by the estate citizen' of Pennsylvania against the railroad but will be company, open the widow or to suit the estate of deceased citizen of by the Ohio, although laws of the State where the oc- curred the widow of each estate decedent would-have valid cause of latter action. enactment, Is state having effect, repugnant (cid:127)
clause of the Federal Art. Constitution, declares 2,§ citizens of each that “the State shall be entitled to all privi- immunities of States?” the several Will leges not that be shorn of of its constitutional much value guaranty can for its own any citizens, reserve either for the citizens, estates immunities even which, it denies to citizens or where the facts same, *11 of estates of citizens other States? necessary
It is not to enumerate the and fully privileges immunities hostile the con- secured against discrimination All in provision question. agree among stitutional those our which, and immunities are under institu- privileges I cordially in nature. are fundamental their assent to tions, this in delivered point opinion just what is said upon “In the opinion says: the court. majority decision of .The some’ the merits the' case there are fundamental princi- which to ples are effect. sue and de- controlling right in is fend the courts thé alternative In an force.. organized society it is the conservative all and rights, lies other - at the of orderly foundation is government! It one of the most essential highest privileges-of and citizenship, must and. each State- tó allowed the citizens of all States other extent is precise it allowed to its citizens. .own Equalityóf treatment in this is respect not left to'depend upon comity between the States, but granted protected by the Federal Constitution. Thé ... (cid:127). which it privileges [the to affords one must State] class it afford to the other. Any law by which actions in privileges the courts are begin to its own citizens and from withheld the citizens of other & v. BALTIMORE R. R. OHIO McKenna, JJ., Hablan, dissenting. White and in conflict with the void, States because law of supreme land.” by the
These views are former decisions of this supported In the case of and other courts. v. leading Coryell, Corfield Wash. Mr. Justice 571, 580, C. C. said: “The in- Washington is what are the quiry immunities of citizens privileges States? We no the several feel these confining hesitation to those and immunities which expressions are, thpir nature, fundamental, to the citi- belong, right, zens of all free and which at all been governments, have, times, the citizens of the enjoyed by several States which compose Union from time of their becoming free, independent What these fundamental are it would sovereign. principles be more tedious than difficult to perhaps enumerate.” Among and immunities which particular privileges clearly be deemed the court in fundamental, that case specifies “ to institute maintain actions any kind in the courts State.”
In Paul Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180, court, speaking Mr. said:'“It was Field, undoubtedly Justice object Art. question clause the citizens of place [Const. § 2] with, same each State other footing States, from far as the those advantages resulting citizenship so relieves are concerned. them the disabilities States; in other it discriminating legislation alienage inhibits them of.free States; other them'by gives the-right from, them; it insures to egress ingress into *12 by freedom the possessed the same citizens them other States and enjoyment property in'the acquisition those States thém in it secures to other and in of happiness.; the pursuit has been justly laws. of their protection States the equal so has tended strongly said Constitution that no provision the as this. people States one to citizens ofthe United constitute the from the kind provision removing without some Indeed, of' in the the disabilities citizens of State alienage each with them States, equality privilege and ’giving citizens OCTOBER, TERM, 1907. McKenna, JJ., dissenting.. TJ. S. Harlan, White little more have constituted would Republic States, those the Union thfl.n have constituted would not States; it a league exists.” which now after 430, court, 12 Wall. 418, Maryland, in Ward
So, v. by cited, and, speaking above Coryell, v. to referring Corfield maintain actions “to that Clifford, stated Justice Mr. was fundamental and protected was of the State” in the courts state enact- in question clause against constitutional of other States. citizens discriminated ments that and to the constitutional just cited, cases to Referring court in for the Miller, Justice speaking Mr. in question, clause “Its sole 77, pur- 16 Wall. said: Cases, 36, Slaughter-House whatever those several that declare to the was to pose own or citizens, them to your establish as you grant rights, exercise, on their restrictions impose or qualify, limit you be the measure of the more nor shall less, neither same, within your jurisdiction.” of other States citizens rights S. 107, 114, present 133 U. Cunningham, In Cole intention of “The court, said: .for Justice, speaking Chief to confer citizens of the several IV 2 of Article section all the and to communicate citizenship, privi- a general which the citizens of the same State and immunities leges to under the like and this circumstances, would be entitled institute actions.” includes the case of Blake v. McClung, In more recent' said: “We must not be understood as 256, the saying one State entitled to enjoy a citizen of another that be may latter its own every citi- privilege be accorded zens. There are in which people to its own citizens other States may not participate except conformity to such reasonable regulations as may be established the State. Fok instance, State can- not other States suing in its courts, forbid right being its own enjoyed by people; may require a non- but.it resident, a citizen of although another bond give costs, such bond although a resident. required Such *13 BALTIMORE & R. R. OHIO Hablan, McKenna, White JJ., dissenting. a of the internal affairs of a reasonably State cannot regulation be as characterized hostile to the fundamental rights , of other . only States. . The Constitution forbids will respective citizens of the as legislation affecting or a citizen of one a con- substantially practically State put dition of when he is within or he when removes alienage another when State the or another State, asserting rights that who of the commonly political to those appertain part as of the United community People by known ordained and for whom the Government of the Union was established.” I think, the reversal cases, require
These Court that it denies upon plain- the ground United Constitution of the States. by tiff right secured doors we have Ohio, seen, The statute of closes alone State because present courts plaintiff his death a husband was not at the time of citizen her deceased in another every Ohio, of Ohio. citizen when Thus, by assurance on for purpose, accompanied whatever suit its courts will be for his open by part his death, if his while another State, widow or representative or default of another person is caused by negligence is denied the Ohio But that statute to company. privilege of citizens of other States death representative meeting the- n underlike circumstances. of Ohio citizen should Indeed, mllfully, and while there some into another State go on his cause the or default death part, act, neglect he liable a suit be damages one, although might some yet if sued occurred, where in the State in bar of only plead he need own State, his the courts of the time at of his not, the decedent Ohio is the me, operation it seems Such, of Ohio. a citizen death, the court below. interpreted it is of Ohio the statute does base observed, it will Court The Supreme law the any apart common its judgment a consideration “From says: statutes. statutes TERM, 1907. JJ., McKenna, dissenting. White Hablan, *14 and the to, court, referred former decisions of this hereinbefore held to be must now be the and recognized policy it we think an action for State, law of this death established will State, another not be enforced in in courts the occurring where the killed person at of except was, of this the time State, of Ohio.” It its places a citizen death, his on judgment which it decisions, and judicial statutes as regards together and law of the to the be such policy as 'to indicating pre- action where damages, except elude an the was deceased for. That of Ohio. exception, upon a citizen whatever basis it fall must before the Constitution rested, be of the United as a nullity. and be treated The denial to the widow of of-Chambers the to sue in representative right Ohio upon, was not a that he citizen of Ohio the when ground killed essential of denial, every sense,, in a the .fundamental privilege him under Constitution in virtue of belonging his being States of a of one of the citizen Union—the right sue and; of in justice, defend the courts this right court concedes “ highest to ibé one of the most essential of citi- life Chambers zenship.” enjoyed While right—and valuable was a most right—of protection came from the rule that, of Pennsylvania, case his death established of consequencé/Of negligence others, done to wrong in'his could the deceased lifetime be remedied by means of name suit for the benefit of his brought widow or But Ohio personal representative. takes right protec- Ohio him; for, tion'from would have taken cognizance this, decedent action Chambers had been, when'killed/ while it Ohio, citizen denies relief to his widow, puts solely out oí court her because her was, killed, husband when a citizen of State. another thus accords to the Ohio Widow of á deceased citizen a Ohio which it privilege withholds Pennsylvania' widow of a deceased Pennsylvania citizen. If had statutes of Ohio excluded from the jurisdiction the courts all of that State actions for account would be different- But question presented'. v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. McKenna, JJ., dissenting. Hablan, White S.U. already shown, has assumed to do. As it allows what Ohio like the where the death occurred present one, suits for damages was a the deceased citizen State, provided in another but he was a citizen some other State. The them where prohibits denies a fundamental final in this case therefore section citizenship, protected inhering is the supreme Constitution. The IV Constitution Article if any law But it would not of the land. sunreme state enactment' or could be overridden either by it Eng. New &c. Rail- decision. In v. Central by judicial Higgins Judicial Court 176, 180, road, Massachusetts, transitory causes of after Massachusetts, referring common but were created law, which did not exist at n administrator of State and passed of Another *15 statute here, upon said: “When an action deceased, brought .the these any difficulty points. is not met by upon the plaintiff upon will entertain it depends general. our courts Whether in the question which are to be applied determining principles shall laws of other founded actions whether ‘ in case of other that, than require here. These'principles heard contrary to our law, public if not actions, foreign penal or calculated to morals, or pure or to abstract justice policy, and shall be citizens, recognized State or its enforced injure (cid:127) if necessary parties, of all if we have here, jurisdiction of procedure own forms consistently with our can'see that, we between the justice do substantial we can and law trials, the plain- Pennsyvania gave The statute parties.” sue for does to damages deceased a-right as widow of the tiff nor is it calculated morals, dr offend natural justice good nor Ohio, those not even any State, citizens to injure which has been of that any policy to offend can it be said citizens of its own citizens to made applicable-equally in attempts, which Ohio in one case is plainly States. The in maintainable are kinds of actions to certain reference to its give Union, including every perhaps circumstances, like under denies, which it privileges own citizens TEItM, 1907- a, JJ., White and McKenn Hablan, dissenting.
to citizens other States. To a citizen of Ohio it “If says: Pennsylvania, into you go killed while there, con- or default of sequence negligence some one, your widow have access to Ohio courts in a suit for damages, pro- vided the can be reached in Ohio wrongdoer by 'service of proc- ess.” But to the citizen of Pennsylvania it “If says: you come your that State by reason of the or de- negligence fault of some even one, he wrongdoer a citizen Ohio, your widow shall not sue the Ohio in an Ohio wrongdoer because, only are a because, you citizen of another State.” This is an illegal discrimination citizens against living of other the difficulty is not bymet the suggestion that no discrimination is made the widow of against the de- ceased her because citizenship another State. The stat- Pennsylvania ute of in question had in'view the protection while persons, alive, default negligence causing death. must have had that I object view. submit that no State can authorize its courts to deny disregard constitutional that the guaranty each State shall be entitled all to. and immunities of citizens in the several States. With entire for the views of I am respect others, constrained say so that, my of the local opinion, much law, whether statutory or otherwise, as permits suits this kind for damages, where the deceased was a citizen of Ohio, but forbids such suits where the deceased was not a citizen of Ohio, is unconstitu- under tional. review should be reversed.