*1 rule here often tested. The announced is that no con- necessary will.be unless passed upon stitutional disposition of the pending .cause. judgment Supreme Court müst be
Affirmed. part Mr. Justice took no Cardozo the consideration or decision of this cause.
ERIE RAILROAD CO. v. TOMPKINS. Argued January April 25, 1938. Decided No. *2 William Kiendl, whom Messrs. C. with Theodore Mr. brief, on the were Harold W. Bissell Cannon petitioner. *4 Rees, whom Alexander L. with Messrs.
Mr. Fred H. brief, were on re- William Walsh Strouse spondent.
69 (cid:127) delivered the Brandéis Justice Mr.
Court. oft-challenged is whether decision disapproved. now be Tyson1 v. shall
doctrine of Swift
injured
a
Pennsylvania,
was
on
citizen
Tompkins, a
Erie Rail-
freight train
night by
passing
a
dark
along
right
way
its
at
walking
while
Company
road
the,accident
He
that
Hughestown in that State.
claimed
or main-
through negligence
operation,
occurred
train;
rightfully
on
tenance, of the
was
h.e
beaten:
commonly
because on
used
premises as licensee
alongside
rah for a short distance
footpath which
tracks;
by something
he
struck
which looked
that was
To
moving
a door
from one
cars.
projecting
like
an
brought
he
in the federal
enforce that claim
action
York,
jurisdiction
New
for southern
which had
court
It
company
corporation
of that State.
because
liability;
by
the case was tried
a jury.
denied
Leading
applying
(1842).
1 16
1
cases
are
Pet.
doctrine
col
Black White Taxicab Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab
&
lected in
Co.,
518, 530,
application
Dissent
S.
531.
from its
or exten
276 U.
early
by
McKinley (and
expressed
as 1845 Mr. Justice
sion was
Vick,
in Lane v.
Taney)
464,
3 How.
Dis
Mr.
Justice
Chief
Mr. Justice Daniel in Rowan v.
senting opinions
were also written
Runnels, 5
134, 140; by
Mr. Justice Nelson in Williamson v.
How.
Berry,
558; by
Campbell
Pease
495, 550,
8 How.
Mr. Justice
Gelpcke
595,
600;
599,
Peck,
18 How.
and Mr. Justice Miller in
City
Dubuque,
City
207,
and Butz v.
Musca
175,
1
Wall.
tine,
Vigorous
Wall.
attack
the entire
8
doctrine was
Baugh,
&
Baltimore
R. Co. made
Mr.
Field in
Ohio
Justice
368, 390,
Justice Holmes in Kuhn
by Mr.
v. Fairmont
U. S.
Coal
case,
S.
the Taxicab
U.
The Erie insisted its was no , greater contended, than that owed to a It trespasser. among things, duty its *6 other Tompkins, its liability, hence should be determined in accordance Pennsylvania with the Penn- law;,that under the law of sylvania, by highest' court, as declared its who persons along use pathways the railroad is right way of —that longitudinal a pathway as from distinguished a cross- be ing deemed trespassers; and that the railroad —are injuries is not liable for re- trespassers undiscovered sulting negligence, from its it unless or be wanton wilful. any Tompkins denied such rule had been established of the Pennsylvania the decisions courts; and con- that, there tended since was no of statute the State on subject, duty the railroad’s liability is to general determined federal courts as a matter of law. .. judge trial refused to rule that the applicable law precluded recovery. The jury brought in a of verdict $30,000; judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Court Appeals, Circuit of which F. held, 90 2d 603, 604, that it unnecessary was to consider whether the Pennsylvania law contended, of as because the ques- was. local, tion one of general, was not but of law and that “upon questions general of law the are federal courts free, in the of a local statute, absence exercise their independent judgment to what the is; and it is question well settled that of the responsibility of a injuries for railroad caused its is gen- servants one of eral law. . . . Where the public open has made use right way notorious of a railroad of a long period objection, of time and without the company per- owes to permissive sons on such pathway duty a of care in the It operation of its trains. ... generally likewise rec- ognized jury may negligence law that a find that exists using pedestrian permissive toward on path the rail- if right way he is object road hit some projecting side of from the the train.” the Penn- application contended that The Erie had things, by § other required, among sylvania rule was Judiciary September 24, 1789, Act of c. of the Federal 725, provides: § U. C. which S. States, except where “The several laws treaties, -United States Constitution, statutes or as rules regarded shall be require provide, otherwise of the law, at in the courts in trials common decision they apply.” States, cases where United whether importance Because of the disregard alleged rule of the was .free to federal court granted certiorari. Pennsylvania law, common we Tyson, First. 16 Pet. held that federal jurisdiction on the exercising ground diversity need not, jurispru matters citizenship *7 law of the State as declared dence, the unwritten apply court; they that are free to an by highest exercise .its independent to what the common law of the judgment as be; that, by State is—or as there stated should and Mr. Story: Justice thirty-fourth of the interpretation
“the true section lim- to state laws to strictly local, ited its application is the state, to statutes of and the con- say, positive adopted tribunals, thereof local and to struction to things titles a rights having permanent locality, and rights and real titles to and other mat- estate, such as and ters immovable intraterritorial nature in their It never has supposed character. been that the by us, sec- tion did or was to apply, apply, questions intended to of a general nature, more dependent not at all local upon stat- as, utes of a usages permanent operation, local fixed and to the construction of example, ordinary contracts or other instruments, especially questions written to law, commerbial where the state tribunals are perform called to the like as ourselves, functions is, to' ascertain upon general reasoning legal analogies, exposition what of the contract or true 72
instrument, just or what is the rule furnished the prin- ciples of commercial law to the case.” govern Court in to applying §
The 34 equity cases, rule States, United Mason 545, 559, said: “The statute, however, is merely declarative the rule which 2 exist in would the absence of the statute.” The federal assumed, in' field of “general law,” the broad to power declare Congress rules decision which was confessedly power without to enact as statutes. Doubt expressed was repeatedly as'to the correctness of the con given 34,3 § struction the rule soundness of which it introduced.4 But it was the more recent re search of competent . scholar, original who examined document, given which established that the construction to it erroneous; Court was and that the purpose merely section was certain all that, make mat except ters those which some federal law is controlling, 2 Barney’s Lessee, 457, 464, In Hawkins v. Pet. it was stated that uniformly “has been held no more than a declaration of § wit, the law would have been without it: what the lex loci governing private right, jurisdic must be the rule of under whatever private right comes to be examined.” See also tion Bank Hamil Dudley’s Lessee, 492, Compare Chew, ton 2 Pet. Jackson v. 162, Livingston 168; Moore, 12 Wheat. Pet. 3Pepper, Border Land of Federal (1889) The and State Decisions 57; Gray, (1909 ed.) 533-34; Nature and of Law Sources §§ Trickett, Administered in (1906) Non-Federal Law Federal Courts 40 Am. L. Rev. 821-24. 4 Street, Is General There Commercial Law United States (1873) Reg. Hornblower, 473; *8 Conflict 21 Am. L. between State and (1880) 211; Meigs, Federal 14 Am. L. Rev. Decisions Decisions of Questions (1882) on Law Federal Courts 8 L. State So. Rev. (n. s.) 452, (1911) 47; Heiskell, 45 L. Am. Rev. Conflict between (1882) 743; Rand, Federal and State Decisions Am. L. 16 Rev. Swift Tyson Gelpcke Dubuque (1895) 328, versus v. Harv. Rev. 8 L. Mills, Ignore 341-43: Federal (1900) Should Courts State 34 Laws 51; Carpenter, Am. L. Rev. Court Decisions and the Common Law (1917) 17 Col. L. Rev. 602-03.
64 jurisdiction diversity exercising
the federal
as their rules of
citizenship
apply
cases would
decision
State,
as well as
law of the
unwritten
written.5
became widespread
Criticism of
doctrine
after
Yel
decision of Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Brown &
There,
waa citing many in decisions which the doctrine of v. Swift Tyson had applied, been affirmed the decree.
Second. in the Experience applying doctrine of Swift Tyson, had defects, political revealed its and social; expected from and benefits to flow the rule did not of Persistence state courts in opinions accrue. their own law prevented uniformity;7 on of common questions and . discovering of impossibility line of satisfactory province general of demarcation between law and that of new well developed of local uncertainties.8 other, hand, the mischievous On of doc- results apparent: had Diversity trine of citizenship becoihe in jurisdiction was conferred order to prevent appre- discrimination in hended state against those not of the State. citizens grave introduced ’by against discrimination non-citizens It citizens. made enjoyed under the rights “general unwritten law” vary according to whether sought enforcement was in the state 7 Compare Gelpcke City Dubuque, Justice Miller in Mr. 1 175, Holt, 209. The Wall. conflicts listed in The Concurrent Juris (1888) seq. diction of the Federal and Courts 160 State et cover Frankfurter, twenty-eight supra pages. 524-30; also note at See supra Dawson, 6; Supreme Note, Stop, note Aftermath Court’s (1930) Listen 926; Rule Look 43 Harv. L. Rev. cf. Yntema and Preliminary Analysis Jaffin, (1931) Jurisdiction 79 Concurrent U. Moreover, pointed by Judge L. Rev. 881-86. out Pa. Augustus Pennsylvania N. Hand in 2d Cole v. R. 43 F. questions 956-57, decisions of this Court on common law are less uniformity. likely formerly promote than 8 Compare Warren, Supreme United His Court States (rev. 1935) tory “Probably ed. 89: no decision of the Court has ever rights; though given uncertainty legal to more rise as to doubt promote uniformity operation intended in the business less transactions, its chief effect been render it difficult for business has topic particular men to know advance to what would Court apply Digest, through .” The . . Federal the 1937 doctrine. .volume, nearly involving lists decisions between distinction questions local law. court; privilege selecting federal con right be determined was in which the should
court ren the Thus, the non-citizen.9 doctrine ferred In the law. at equal of protection impossible dered throughout of law promote uniformity to tempting uniformity the doctrine had prevented United States^ of law the State. the administration of far- practice became resulting The discrimination prov- part the broad reaching. This resulted from as which “general so-called law” to ince accorded independent judgment.10 exercised an In federal law, “general of commercial questions purely addition under'contracts obligations was held to include law” State,11 within the into be performed and to entered may a State operating to which a carrier within extent negli- for liability for from his own stipulate exemption for employee;12 liability of torts -or that his gence upon persons or within State committed resident there, even where the of liar located property 9 plaintiff non-resident defeated on a possible It was even highest court of a State win point law in the nevertheless to out renewing controversy taking in the a nonsuit and federal Michigan Co., R. Gardner v. Cent. Compare 349; 150 S. court. U. Realty 8); Foley, & (C. Interstate Inv. 57 C. A. Harrison v. 206 Fed. Mills, supra (C. 5); County, Fed. 721 C. A. see v. Bibb 293 Co. 4, note at 10 scope doctrine, Sharp survey of the see & For a recent Doctrine Swift v. Brennan, Application since . (1929) J. 367 4 Ind. L. 1900 11 Co., Brown & Yellow Taxicab Black & Taxicab Co. v. White Boyce Runnels, 5 Tabb, 134, 139; How. Rowan v. 518; v. Co., (C. v. Chas. D. Norton 546, Fed. 361 Johnson 548; 159 18 Wall. C. Reid, Bank (C. Cent 221 Keene Five Sav. 6); v. 123 Fed. A. A. C. 8) . Liverpool Lockwood, & 357, 68; 17 Wall. 12 Railroad Co. v. 367 — Co., 443; Eels v. Phenix Ins. St. W. U. S. Steam Co. v. G. 129 Co., Ry. (C. Louis, Fowler Iowa); 52 Fed. C. S. K. & N. W. D. 903 Co., (C. 2). Pennsylvania R. 229 Fed. 373 C. A. 76 con scope property right of a
bility depended upon
exemplary
puni
State;13
right
and the
ferred
construing
decisions
Furthermore,
damages.14
tive
state
and even devises
conveyances,16
deeds,15
local
mineral
disregarded.18
real estate17 were
range
wide
from the
In
resulted
part
discrimination
the federal
themselves of
entitled to avail
held
persons
diversity
citizenship jurisdiction.
by resort to the
rule
willing
individual citizens
jurisdiction
Through
own State and'
from their
become citizens
remove
And,
themselves of the federal
might avail
rule.19
another
residence,
change
corporate citizen of
even
without
Compare
Chicago Robbins, 2 Black
Yates v. Mil
506-07;
waukee,
Yeates
Illinois
Wall.
Cent. R.
(C.
Ill.);
Ry.
*11
D.
Cleveland,
C. N.
Fed. 943
v.
Curtis
C. & St. L.
C.
(C.
Ill.).
Railway Co.,
777
C. E. D.
See also
v.
Hough
140 Fed.
Co.,
226;
213,
149
S.
Baugh,
Co. v.
U.
&
R.
Baltimore
Ohio
368;
349, 358; Beutler
Michigan
Gardner v.
U. S.
Co.,
Cent. R.
150
85;
Ry. Co.,
224
U.
Trunk
& Ohio
v. Grand
S.
Junction
Baltimore
66;
275
Goodman,
Ry. Co.,
v.
U. S.
Pokora v. Wabash
292
Co.
R.
(2d)
(C.
2).
98;
Pennsylvania
Cole v.
43 F.
953
Co.,
C. A.
U. S.
R.
14
106;
101,
147
Ry.
U. S.
Prentice,
Co. v.
& M.
Shore
S.
Lake
(C.
4);
77 itself of the rule re-incor- could avail federal the State State, was done of another under the porating laws Taxicab case. doctrine of injustice and confusion incident The urged as reasons repeatedly have been Tyson Swift citizenship jurisdict limiting diversity abolishing If legislative proposed.21 relief has been Other ion.20 involved, construction were statutory only widely a doctrine so abandon prepared not we should century.22 uncon- But nearly a throughout applied 20 See, g., Hearings the Senate Com Before e. Subcommittee 937, 3243, Cong., 939, 72d 1st Judiciary on on S. S. S. mittee Hearing on the Judi (1932) Before the House Committee 6-8; Sess. 1st 11508, Cong., 4526, and H. R. 72d 10594, H. R. ciary H. R. on 530, Cong., 1st (1932) 97-104; Rep. 72d No. Sess. Sess., 12 Sen. ser. Diversity Against Because of (1932) Collier, Plea Jurisdiction 4-6; A 266; supra 6; Frankfurter, 263, 264, note (1913) L. J. Cent. Diversity 6; Warren, Corporations and of Citizen Ball, supra note (1933) 661, ship Rev. 686. 19 Va. L. abrogate doctrine of Thus, bills which would 96, 4333, Cong., Sess.; 1st 71st S. 70th S. have been introduced. Cong., 8094, Mills, 1st also Cong., R. 72d Sess. Sess.; 1st H. See Dobie, 241; Frankfurter, 68-69; supra 6, note at 4, supra at note supra 6, 530; Campbell, note at statutes supra State note at “general suggested. conflicting also been questions law” have on 760; supra 6; Dobie, supra Dawson, Heiskell, supra note at note See 6, at 24 note Eliot, The not been doctrine has without defenders. See The (1902) Courts 36 Am. L. Rev. Law of the Federal Common 523-25; Parker, B. Law Jurisdiction the United A. Common *12 Schofield, (1907) 1; Tyson: 17 Yale L. J. Swift v. Courts States Judge-Made and Federal Uniformity of Law in State Courts State 533; Brown, (1910) of Federal Ill. Rev. The Jurisdiction the L. (1929) Diversity Citizenship of L. Rev. of U. Pa. Courts Based on Parker) 189-91; The Federal and Recent At J. Jurisdiction J. (1932) 433, 438; Yntema, Upon It 18 B. A. J. The Jurisdic tacks A. in Federal Controversies Between Citizens of the Courts tion (1933) 71, 74-75; Beutel, 19 A. B. A. J. Common Different States Negotiable Technique Law of and the Instruments— Judicial Law (1934) 9 Tulane L. Rev. 64. Decisions Two Unfortunate has now stitutionality pursued the course been made clear and us do so. compels Except governed by in the Third. matters Federal Con law to Congress, applied stitution or Acts the be in is the the State. And whether the any case law of law of Legislature the shall its a State be declared in statute highest in byor its court a decision is not a matter of fed general eral concern. is no There federal common law. Congress has no rules of power declare substantive com in mon law local in applicable they State whether be or “general,” their nature be commercial law or a they the part of law of torts. And no clause-in Constitu tion purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. As stated Field by Mr. Justice when protesting Baugh, in Baltimore & R. 368, 401, Ohio Co. against ignoring Ohio common law of servant fellow liability:
“I am aware that termed what has been law general country of the is often little less what than —which judge advancing the doctrine thinks at the time should particular subject on a often been —has opinions in judicial advanced this court to control a . State., conflicting law I admit judges learned habit1 have fallen into of-repeating doctrine as a brushing mode aside the convenient law of a State with their I that, conflict views. And confess moved and governed by authority great of the names those I judges, have, myself, instances, in many unhesitatingly confidently, I think but now-erroneously, repeated But, notwithstanding the same doctrine. great names may doctrine, which be cited favor and notwith- standing frequency with which the has doctrine been reiterated, stands, there as a protest against perpetual its States, Constitution of repetition, the United which recognizes preserves autonomy and independence , independence legislative their and inde- States — *13 judicial pendence departments. their Supervision over legislative judicial either the or the action of the States no permissible is in case as except matters the Con- specifically stitution delegated authorized or to the United Any States. interference with either, as except thus per- mitted, is an and, invasion of the authority State extent, to that a denial of independence.” its fallacy underlying rule declared in Swift is made clear Mr. Justice Holmes.23 The doc trine rests the assumption that there is “a tran law body any scendental of outside of particular State but obligatory within it until changed by statute,” unless and that federal courts have the their power judgment to use as to what the are; rules common law and that in the parties federal courts “the are entitled to an independent judgment on matters of general law" —: “but law in the sense which of it speak today courts not does exist without authority some definite behind it. State, The common law so far it as is enforced in a common whether called common law not, or is not the generally law but existing by of that State authority State may what regard without it in England .have been or anywhere . . else. . authority only
“the authority State, and if so, the adopted voice by the State as its own [whether it be Legislature Supremé its of its should Court] utter last word.” Tyson is, the doctrine
Thus Mr. Justice Holmes “an said, unconstitutional assumption powers the United which lapse States no of time or respectable array make should us hesitate to correct.” In disapproving that doctrine dowe not hold Co., Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal 349, 370-372; Black & Taxicab Brown Yellow & Taxicab Co. White U. S. 532-36. Judiciary the Federal Act § 34 of
unconstitutional *14 declare Congress. merely We Act of any other 1789 or Court and the lower doctrine this applying that in in are re- our rights whicíi have invaded the several States. the Constitution to by served that the com contended Fourth. The defendant highest its court Pennsylvania declared of mon 203; 160 A. R. 307 Pa. Pennsylvania in Falchetti to refrain was duty plaintiff owed to the only 859, the The denied injury. plaintiff wanton from wilful or re In of their Pennsylvania law.24 support such is many and cited discussed parties spective contentions The the State. Cir of Supreme decisions Court liability question of ruled that Appeals cuit Court to de declined ground and on law; is one of thjat error, hold we law. was the issue state cide As. it for remanded to and the case is reversed judgment n. o our conformity opini with in proceedings further Reversed. in the consideration part took no Cardozo Mr. Justice case. of this or decision Butler.
Mr. Justice simple is a one. the evidence presented The case in While Pennsylvania. injured severely was Plaintiff way a much-used right along walking on defendant’s track, he came of its main the cross ties at the end of path from side swinging open an door collision with into Having in direction. opposite going car a train of a headlight, he saw the locomo- by whistle warned been alleged rule of contended that the Falchetti Tompkins also applicable he struck at the any here because event case not .was crossing. longitudinal pathway and a.transverse 'intersection unnecessary contention, to consider this it below found court question open. we leave the approaching enough tive and had time and space step danger. justify get aside and so avoid To his failure out of he way, says upon many other occasions safely he had there while trains'passed. walked on Invoking jurisdiction ground diversity of. citizenship, plaintiff, a citizen Pennsyl- .and resident of vania, brought this suit recover de- damages against, fendant, a New York corporation, federal court the southern district that State. The issues were negligence whether of defendant was proximate cause injuries his negligence and whether con- plaintiff tributed. He that, by hauling claimed the car with the open defendant door, violated a The de- duty him. fendant that it insisted violated no duty plain- *15 injuries tiff’s were by caused his own negligence. ..The jury him a on gave verdict the trial which court entered judgment; the circuit court of appeals affirmed. 90 F. (2d) 603. maintained, citing Pennsylvania
Defendant Falchetti v. Co., 203; 859, R. 307 Pa. 160 A. and Koontz v. B. & O. R. Co., 212, 163 A. that 122; only Pa. the duty owed refrain from plaintiff willfully was to or wantonly injuring it that the him; argued courts Pennsylvania had so respect ruled to persons using with a customary longi distinguished path, tudinal as from crossing one the track. plaintiff, The insisted the Pennsylvania decisions did not establish the rule which for the defendant contended.. Upon that issue the circuit court of appeals (p. 604): said “We need go hot into this' matter since the defendant great weight concedes authority in other states contrary.- tois' This concession is fatal to its conten tion, upon questions general for law the federal courts free, in absence of a local statute, their exercise are. independent to what judgment as is; law and it is well settled that question responsibility of a railroad injuries its servants by general caused is one of law.” the evidence sufficient court held
Upon that basis injuries were caused finding plaintiff’s sustain a question It also held the negligence of defendant. jury. one for contributory negligence presented certiorari for writ of petition Defendant’s plaintiff toward should duty its Whether questions: two the law as in accordance with been determined have and whether Pennsylvania, court highest found of con- guilty conclusively plaintiff showed the evidence always that, Plaintiff contends tributory negligence. Court, negligence the issues held heretofore by general determined contributory negligence are to held conclu- may not be decisions against which local Pennsylvania solitary that defendant sive; relies.on the deci- that, even applicability doubtful jtf case of controlling, deemed of that State were sions of'the would have to be reached. result the same suggested argued was be question No constitutional rule, this Court And as a will not here. low or presented by not raised below and any consider States, United 292 U. S. Olson v. petition. Ry. 289 U. S. v. Manhattan Johnson 98. Here it does not decide Cooley, Gunningv. presented but, changing the rule questions either of the foundation of Govern in force since of decision adjudged according to a case td be remands ment, permissible. deemed never before standard that “the question states just announced *16 oft-challenged the doctrine is whether for decision disap- shall now be Pet. [1842, 16 1] proved.” Judiciary construction the the involved
That case states, except several “The laws of the 34: 1789, § Act of United Constitution, treaties, or statutes the. where regarded as require or shall be provide, otherwise States of- law in the courts in trials at common decision rules they in cases where apply.” Express- the United States Court, of all the members of the ing the view Mr. Justice 18): “In the use of Story (p. ordinary language said it will hardly that be contended decisions Courts consti- They most, at are, only tute laws. evidence what- are, laws and not. of themselves laws. They are often re-examined, reversed, qualified by the Courts them- selves, they are whenevér found to be either defective, or ill-founded, or incorrect. The laws of a -state otherwise mean, usually are more understood to the rules and enact- promulgated by legislative thereof, ments authority long local customs having established the force of laws. cases, In all the various which have hitherto come before decision, uniformly have supposed, us this Court that for thirty-fourth interpretation true section limited strictly local, state laws that application say, its to is to state, statutes of and the positive construction tribunals, local and to adopted rights thereof permanent things having locality, titles' to such estate, rights and titles to' real- and other matters immov- and intraterritorial their nature and able character. us, supposed by It has been never the section did designed apply, questions or was apply, of a more not at all general nature, dependent upon local statutes usages permanent of a operation, as, or local fixed to the construction of example, ordinary contracts or instruments, especially questions other written law, general where the state .tribunals are commercial upon'to perform called like as ourselves, functions is, to ascertain reasoning and legal analogies, exposition what is the true of the contract or instrument, just or what is the rule furnished prin-. ciples govern of commercial law to the case. And we have slightest holding., not now the difficulty this sec- tion, upon and construction, its true intendment strictly usages limited to local statutes and local of the .character *17 34 other not to contracts and stated, does extend
before nature, interpreta- true a commercial instruments of in sought, are not the deci- whereof tion and effect tribunals, general in the principles local but sions Undoubtedly, jurisprudence. and doctrines of commercial are upon subjects decisions of the local tribunals such receive, to, will deliberate attention entitled most Court; they posi- but cannot furnish respect of this authority, by judg- which our rules, or conclusive own tive governed.” (Italics up to be bound ments are added.) has been this
The doctrine of that case followed ap line of decisions. So far as Court an unbroken until more than pears, questioned years it was not single judge.1 Baltimore & Ohio later, and then a case, In that Mr. Baugh, R. Co. v. truly Brewer, Court, (p. said speaking Justice for been 373): opinion may have “Whatever differences whether a mat have not been on the expressed, independent ter of should be settled an court, through rather than adherence judgment other courts, upon of the state but decisions matter is or of given a of local whether one question, ” . general law decision, division in this And since it character as was before. same been one Court has Holmes, speaking himself and 1910, Mr. Justice In holding from the a dissented Justices, other two dissenting opinion,-several sentences of Field 1 Mr. filed Justice just dissent announced. failed quoted in the decision are which adherence to assumes that impress any of his associates. It § judicial legislative or action supervision over involves construed suggestion. Clearly for that There is no foundation the states. misapprehension rests learned Justice the dissent quarter for more than a applying the doctrine joined He rule. reports he do not disclose that century his dissent. The before aof any Mase, 165 Oakes v. U. S. later case. objected it Cf. court of the United was bound to exercise its States own *18 independent in the construction judgment convey of a ance made before the courts had au state rendered an meaning thoritative decision as to and effect. Kuhn its Co., Coal 215 U. 349. But v. Fairmont S. that dissent 371) (p. as ‘‘settled” the doctrine of v. accepted Swift Tyson, 372) merely that the (p. insisted case under by necessity peculiarly consideration was nature and local. Thereafter, before, was constantly app the doctrine In Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Brown & Yel lied.2 Co., 518, judges 276 U. S. three low Taxicab dissented . dissent, Holmes, said, Mr. Justice how The writer of 535): “I leave ever should v. undis (p. Co., I in Kuhn Fairmont Coal turbed, as indicated v. but the assumed dominion spread I not it to would allow into new fields.” unqualified application
No more
of the doctrine can be
through
in decisions of
Mr.
speaking
found than
this Court
Britt,
Justice Holmes. United Zinc
Whenever with standards sus authority constituting general, tained reason and law, this Court has applicable decisions of followed state Johnson, courts. Mutual 335, Ins. Co. v. U. S. 293 Life Burgess 20, 339. See v. S. Seligman, 107 U. 34. Black & White Taxicab Co. Yellow Co., v. Brown & Taxicab . 530 supra, Unquestionably the issues offnegligence and contributory negligence upon which decision of this case Co., In Trust Finance Salem Co. v. Manufacturers’ 182, Mr. and Mr. Justice Brandeis Justice Holmes concurred (p. 200) judgment general Court in the law on the . rights parties governed ground were state law depends Hough Railway are law. questions Lake, Ry. Shore & Co., 100 U. M. S. Co. v. S. Prentice, 147 101. Baltimore & Co. v. U. S. Ohio R. Co., Baugh, supra. Michigan Gardner Central R. Ry. White, 238 U. S. 358. Central Vermont Co. v. Goodman, U. S. & Ohio R. Baltimore Co. supra. supra. Ry. Pokora v. Wabash While amendments 34 have from time § to time section., been as originally stands enacted. suggested, Evidently throughout Congress years has intended the rule of decision as construed should continue to govern federal courts trials at common law. The opinion just suggests announced Mr. re Warren’s from beginning search has established that Court *19 But erroneously § has construed that author’s “New History on of the Federal Act of Light Judiciary the to be authoritative and in purport 1789” not does was suggestive. more than The .weight tended to be no to been discovery has never this given be to his at discussed ground, indicate the opinion Nor does disclosed bar. the. y dissenting opinion In his the Taxi the research. b Mr., Holmes referred case, Justice cab Mr. barren’s the Court “laws” persuade failed to used work but varying possibly rul included ill-considered § 34 questions of á State on ings the courts of. common supra, Tyson, 16-17. It well See, g., law. e. should now call for that, argument if the Court may be Mr. research, of Warren’s it would on the basis of counsel always put upon it has § 34-. to the construction adhere indicates. in this case so For it the de Indeed, opinion statutory construction only “If were question clares: prepared be abandon a doc should not involved, we century. But the widely applied throughout trine so pursued has now been the course unconstitutionality that, so.” means to do This compels us made clear condemned, now rule concerns decision far as so judicial to establish 1789, passed Judiciary Act of States, judicial the United powe courts to exert r construed, is unconsti 34 of Act as especially § bound to follow federal are now tutional; courts the contro courts in which State decisions of is otherwise Congress arise; powerless versies and that consequences hard ordain. It to foresee is Taxicab case in the made. Our change radical so serve Court which numerous decisions of cites now intended from which it is to indicate the field part to all mat It extends forever to bar federal courts. positively governed not ters of contracts and torts precedent Counsel searching enactments. state on which to principles common-law reasoning to disclose litigation by this and conduct are decision guide clients questions the decisions of this to all of these told that as longer anywhere are no and other federal Court authoritative. to con emphasized often its reluctance
This Court has will not questions, legislation and that sider constitutional if to the fundamental repugnant held invalid as any In may ground. case be decided view other result consequences liable to from erroneous exer grave Court legislation, to set aside power tion of its should only seek act cautiously, counsel, assistance after move deliberation, show that ample before the decision cannot be Court, that its avoided construction otherwise, assailed or precisely statute indicate principle provision of the Constitution held have *20 transgressed, fully been disclose. the reasons and found to warrant the of authorities conclusion invalidity. against safeguards improvident These the great use of the power legislation well-grounded to invalidate are so of reasons or of authority familiar that statement citation is no longer But support necessary. g.: to them see e. Bridge v. Warren 11 Pet. Bridge, Charles River 420, 553; Talcott, Pine Grove v. 19 Wall. Township 666, 673; of Ry. Chicago Wellman, & G. T. Co. v. 345; U. S. Grice, 284, 292; Baker v. Martin v. District of Columbia, 205 U. S. appears, litigant challenged
So far as no ever the has Congress of to power establish the: rule as construed. It has long so its without endured destruction now justified. cannot appropriate deliberation be There is in to nothing suggest of consideration any question is necessary constitutional to a of decision of By way reasoning, case. it contains nothing that requires the conclusion reached. no Admittedly,- there is authority support to Against protest conclusion. joining of in opinion, those this to Court declines assign reargument. case for may justly It not assumed that the labor argument of counsel for parties would not right disclose the conclusion and aid the Court In statement to support it. reasons deed, it would have appropriate give been to Congress to opportunity be heard before it of to devesting power rules decision to be prescribe followed' in the courts of Myers United States, United States. See S.U. 52, 176. pursued by the Court in
The course is repug- case nant the Act of Congress August 24, 1937, 50 Stat. It declares: “That whenever constitutionality Act any Congress affecting the public interest is in question drawn in any court of the United States any suit or proceeding States, to which the United or any thereof, any or agency thereof, officeror employee as such officer or is employee, party, not the court juris- having proceeding diction the suit shall certify such fact Attorney In any General. such case the court shall permit United intervene and States á party become (if presentation of evidence evidence otherwise receivable such suit or proceeding) argument the question of constitutionality such Act.. any .In such suit or proceeding the United shall, subject States the applicable provisions law, have all a. the rights of
89 as the to court costs to of and the liabilities party party of the facts presentation a proper necessary extent That such Act.” constitutionality of relating to had If § Court. defendant to this provision extends of writ certiorari obtained the for and applied no held, power pre has Congress now’ that, claim as construed, have it would decision, § as scribe the rule of the prescribed Court to issue duty been of certifi thi^ that Attorney General in order cate to the United .the intervene and be heard on constitutional might States true of and its purpose the statute question. Within the constitutionality of that measure meaning, the intent and give in intended to question.” Congress has “drawn been in every in case right to be heard the United States the of an Act ihe constitutionality affecting public volving that, In rule chál view the interest. absence be constitutionality, statutes not here lenge of will Act ground, August on that invalidated is first “drawn’ extends cases where constitutionality No question” by extraordinary Court. or-unusual the Court after submission of the cause action should to frustrate the wholesome permitted purpose be it ought The here to be duty imposes Act. as willingly If were whether this is sumed. it doubtful case within Act, the Court give of the should scope the United and, to intervene if opportunity States so advised, to argument on the constitutional question, present for un public it doubtedly great is one of importance. That Act according be to construe would its meaning. its first Court’s sentence defines to be whether doctrine of Tyson Swift disapproved; it (p. 72) shall now recites that Con power prescribe gress without rules decision that s, followed federal have been result 34 in since; § construction of dis after 77-78) (pp. it declares cussion, “the unconstitution n pursued ality the course the rule decision [meani resulting from compels" abandonment construction] long doctrine and then near applied; so the end' *22 of page the last the Court states that it does not hold § 34 unconstitutional, merely that, in but applying the Tyson doctrine of v. construing it, this Court and Swift the rights lower courts have invaded are reserved which by the Constitution to the several But, States. plainly through form of the employed, words substance of the decision appears; it strikes down as unconstitutional § 34 as construed it by decisions; our divests the Con gress prescribe of power rules to be by followed federal deciding questions courts when of general law. In that compels broad field it and the this lower federal courts to follow of the of a particular decisions State.
I am of that the constitutional validity of the rule need not be considered, because under law, as found the courts Pennsylvania -generally throughout country, it is plain that evidence required finding that plaintiff was guilty negligence that injuries contributed to cause his judg- and that ment upon below should be reversed ground. that McReynolds opinion. concurs in this
Mr. Justice Mr. Reed. Justice
I concur in the reached in case, conclusion this disapproval Tyson, doctrine of and in the Swift reasoning of majority opinion in so it except far as relies upon the unconstitutionality pur of the “course sued” courts. the federal Tyson,” “doctrine as I it, understand
is that
laws,”
used in
one,
§
words “the
line
Judiciary
September
Federal
24, 1789,
Act
do not
meaning
include in their
“the decisions of the local tri
Mr.
bunals.”
Justice Story,
deciding
point,
that
said
)
(
-91 decisions the local tribunals “Undoubtedly, receive, and will the most subjects to, are entitled such respect Court; they of this but deliberate attention authority, or conclusive rules, furnish positive cannot judgments up are to be bound our own which governed.” “disapprove” before us and to decide the case now
To requires saywe only the doctrine of Swift meaning in their “the laws” include the words majority opinion As the of the local tribunals. decisions researches and to Mr. Warren’s by its reference shows, Holmes, from Mr. Justice quotation the first “decisions,” that “laws” includes is view Court now the go further declare that unnecessary it “unconstitutional,” was pursued” “course instead *23 merely erroneous. ma course to in the “unconstitutional” referred ruling in is apparently
jority opinion
Swift
legislate
to
Congress
omission of
to
supposed
that the
inter
leaves federal courts free to
decisions
the effect
I am
all
law for themselves.
not at
sure
pret
direction,
statutory
whether,
in
of federal
the absence
compelled to
deci
would be
follow state
federal courts
sufficient doubt
matter
There was
about
sions.
Congress to
former
legislate.
first
No
induce the
to
have passed
this
it. Mr. Justice
Court
opinions
nothing
evidently saw
“unconstitutional” which
Holmes
Tyson,
he
required
overruling
said
Swift
quoted by the
“I
opinion
majority,
should
very
undisturbed,
Ias
in Kuhn
v. Tyson
leave
indicated
Co.,
I would not
spread
but
allow it
v. Fairmont Coal
into
dominion
new fields.” Black & White
the assumed
Co.,
Yellow
Brown &
Taxicab Co. v.
Taxicab
posi
If the
commits this
535.
Court
Congress
that the
is without power
tion
to declare what
courts,
govern
shall
rules of
law
the federal
substantive
questionable.
seems
conclusion also
The line be
procedural
tween
and substantive
hazy
but no
procedure.
one doubts federal
over
power
Wayman v.
Southard,
In Court, this in statutory stare construction, rule, is a useful an hot inexorable command. Burnet v. Co., Oil & Coronado Gas U. S. 393, dissent, p. note 1. Compare Read v. Bishop Lincoln, [1892] 644, 655; A. C. London Street Tramways v.Co. London County Council, [1898] A. C. 379. It seems prefer able to overturn established construction- of an an Act of than, Congress, case, rather the circumstances interpret the Constitution. Cf. United States v. & Delaware Hudson 213 U. S.
. There is no occasion to further range discuss phrases of the opinion. soundness these It is suffi- few; attention, call express my cient now to them and own non-acquiescence. ENGINEER, LA
HINDERLIDER, STATE et al. CHERRY PLATA RIVER CREEK DITCH & CO. Argued February 10, 11, April 25, No. 437. 1938. Decided