U.S. Supreme Court BLACK & WHITE TAXI. & T. CO. v. BROWN & YELLOW TAXI. & T. CO., 276 U.S. 518 (1928)

276 U.S. 518

BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB & TRANSFER CO. v. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB & TRANSFER CO. No. 174. Argued Jan. 13-16, 1928. Decided April 9, 1928.[ Black & White Taxi. & T. Co. v. Brown &

[Page 276 U.S. 518, 531]

constitutes negligence. Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 506, held that the determination of what constitutes a dedication of land to public use is one of general law. Olcott v. Fond du Lac County, 16 Wall. 678, 689, held that the determination of what is a public purpose to warrant municipal taxation involves a question of general law. New York Cent. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 366, declined to follow the state rule as to liability of common carriers for injury of passengers. Liverpool & G. W. S. Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U.S. 397, 443, 9 S. Ct. 469, held a question concerning the validity of a contract for carriage of goods is one of general law. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, 370, 13 S. Ct. 914, so held as to the responsibility of a railroad company to its employees for personal injuries. Beutler v. Grand Trunk Railway, 224 U.S. 85, 88, 32 S. Ct. 402, decides who are fellow servants as a question of general law. [Footnote 1]

[Page 276 U.S. 518, 536]

tucky. The policy of Kentucky with regard to it has been settled in Kentucky more more than thirty-five years. McConnell v. Pedigo (1892) 92 Ky. 465, 18 S. W. 15. Even under the rule that I combat, it has been recognized that a settled line of state decisions was conclusive to establish a rule of property or the public policy of the State. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 175 U.S. 91, 100, 20 S. Ct. 33. I should have supposed that what arrangements could or could not be made for the use of a piece of land was a purely local question, on which, if on any thing, the State should have its own way and the State Courts should be taken to declare what the State wills. See especially George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U.S. 237, 241, 10 S. Ct. 1017.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS and Mr. Justice STONE concur in this opinion. Footnotes

Footnote 1 And see Watson v. Tarpley, 18 How. 517; Mercer County v. Hackett, 1 Wall. 83, 95; Marshall County v. Schenck, 5 Wall. 772, 784; Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546, 548; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, ; Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U.S. 213, 226; Oates v. National Bank, 100 U.S. 239, 246; Brooklyn City & N. R. Co. v. National Bank, 102 U.S. 14, 29; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U.S. 20, 32 et seq., 2 S. Ct. 10; Myrick v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 107 U.S. 102, 109, 1 S. Ct. 425; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U.S. 529, 540, 2 S. Ct. 704; Gibson v. Lyon, 115 U.S. 439, 446, 6 S. Ct. 129; Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U.S. 680, 694, 7 S. Ct. 358; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564; Lake Shore Railway Co. v. Prentice, 147 U.S. 101, 106, 13 S. Ct. 261; Gardner v. Michigan Central Railroad, 150 U.S. 349, 358, 14 S. Ct. 140; Oakes v. Mase, , 17 S. Ct. 345; Barber v. Pittsburgh, etc., Railway, 166 U.S. 83, 100, 17 S. Ct. 488; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U.S. 477, 485, 486 S., 24 S. Ct. 132; Presidio County v. Noel-Young Co., 212 U.S. 58, 73, 29 S. Ct. 237; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bourman, 212 U.S. 536, 541, 29 S. Ct. 319, and cases cited; Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., , 357, et seq., 30 S. Ct. 140; Salem Co. v. Manufacturers' Co., 264 U.S. 182, 191, 44 S. Ct. 266, 31 A. L. R. 867; B. & O. R. R. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66, 70, 48 S. Ct. 24.