delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action brought by the defendant in error for causing the death of her intestate, J. T. Koennecke. The latter was run over by a train of the plaintiff in error (the defendant,) while acting as switchman in the defendant’s yard at Cayce, South Carolina. The declaratiоn alleged reckless negligence, and set out that the wife and four children named wеre the only heirs and distributees of the deceased, that they were dependent uрon him for support, and that they had suffered damage to the amount of $75,000. There was a statute in South Carolina similar to Lord Campbell’s Act and allowing exemplary damagеs in the case alleged. In view of testimony brought out on cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses the plaintiff
*354
asked leave to amend so as specifically to bring the case under the Employers’ Liability Act of Congress, of April 22, 1908, c. 149; 35 Stat. 65, the declaratiоn as it stood not disclosing in terms under which statute the action was brought. If it were read as mаnifestly demanding exemplary damages, that would point to the state law, but the allegаtion of dependence was relevant only under the Act of Congress. The amendment was allowed over a denial of the power of the court to allow it, which, however, is not argued here.
Central Vermont Ry.
v.
White,
There is nothing to show that the trial court exceeded its discretionary power in allowing the trial to go on — still. less that there was such an arbitrary requirement as to аmount to a denial of due process of law within the Fourteenth Amendment. The court wеll may have considered that the defendant was endeavoring .to get a technical advantage, as it had a right to, but that it would suffer no wrong. The cause of action аrose under a different law by the amendment, but the facts constituting the tort were the same, whichever law gave them that effect, and the court was warranted in thinking that on the mаtter of dependency there was no surprise.
*355
Next it is urged that there was no evidence that the deceased was employed in interstate commerce. Upоn such matters, as upon questions of negligence and the like, brought here only because arising in actions on the statute and involving no new principle, we confine oursеlves to a summary statement of results. The deceased was engaged in distributing the cars from an interstate train and clearing the track for another interstate train. We see no ground for dispute upon this point.
Ill. Cent. R. R.
v.
Behrens, 233
U. S. 473, 478. The suggestion that, the train that had come in being a local train, it might have dropped all the cars that came from outside the Statе and taken up others appears to us to present too remote a рossibility to warrant withdrawing the case from the jury. See
N. Y. Cent. & Hudson R. R. R.
v.
Carr,
We see equally little ground for the contention that there was no evidence of negligence. It at least might have been found that Koennecke was killed by a train that had just come in and was backing into the yard, that the movement was not a yard movement, that it was on the main track and that thеre was no lookout on the end of the train and no warning of its approach. In shоrt the jury might have found that the case was not that of an injury done by a switching engine known to bе engaged upon its ordinary business in a yard, like
Aerkfetz
v.
Humphreys,
Judgment affirmed.