Erie Railroad v. Hamilton

Background

The Erie Railroad Company was sued in New York for damages after Stephen Mistschook, a subject of the Emperor of Russia, died. His widow and three children lived in Russia. The railroad denied negligence and said it had settled the claim with the Russian consul in New York, who allegedly executed a $400 release on behalf of the widow and next of kin under treaty authority. New York trial and appellate courts held the consul had no authority and entered judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the State’s highest court.

Reasoning

The question before the Court was procedural: how the railroad could seek review in the Supreme Court under the Judicial Code as amended on September 6, 1916. The Court explained that a writ of error (a way to ask the Supreme Court to review a final state-court decision when the validity of a treaty is directly attacked) is different from certiorari (a discretionary petition for review). Because the railroad did not challenge the treaty’s validity but instead argued for a particular interpretation of the treaty, the statute did not allow review by writ of error. The Court therefore dismissed the writ of error for want of jurisdiction, noting the well-established distinction between attacking a treaty’s validity and claiming rights under a treaty’s construction.

Real world impact

This decision does not decide whether the consul’s release or the railroad’s treaty claim was correct on the merits. Instead it tells litigants and lower courts that claims based on an interpretation of a treaty, rather than an attack on the treaty itself, are not reviewable by writ of error under the 1916 statute and ordinarily require certiorari if they are to reach the Supreme Court. The state-court judgment stands unless the Supreme Court later agrees to review by certiorari.