Byron White

“ The plaintiff, a switchman, secured a new knuckle, and going between the cars to put it in place of the broken one, was crushed by a backward movement of the train, which brought the uncoupled cars together. ”

“ King
This action to recover for personal injuries, begun in a state court, was removed to a circuit court and there decided for the plaintiff. To obtain a reversal of a judgment affirming, the case is here upon an assumption that a constitutional question is involved which gives jurisdiction. It is admitted that such question, that is, the repugnancy of the safety appliance law to the Constitution, is now not open to controversy because of a recent decision. Southern R. Co. v. United States, not yet reported. ”

“ First. That while they may in a general sense involve the safety appliance law, none of them directly invoked the interpretation of that law. Second. That while the contentions, from an ultimate point of view, present a question of law-that is, Was there any substantial evidence to go to the jury? in their primary aspect they call for an examination of the entire evidence to determine whether it had any substantial tendency to establish the right of the plaintiff to recover. ”