Summary

Louis Brandeis Union Pacific Company v. Laughlin…

The Missouri statute simply gives a cause of action against one who, with knowledge of the existence of a lien, deforces it. To grant such a remedy against the wrongdoer clearly does not deprive him of any right guaranteed by the federal Constitution, even if the instrument by means of which the wrong is accomplished happens to be the judgment of a federal court.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Union Pacific Company v. Laughlin…

The company's contention, as set forth in its assignment of error in this court, is that the decision below takes its property and denies to it equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the decision imposes a liability not imposed by the judgment recovered by Xedes in the federal court; deprives it of the protection afforded by the Acts of Congress to those who pay to the clerks of the United States District Courts money in satisfaction of judgments entered therein; [2] and gives to two attorneys liens for the same service.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Union Pacific Company v. Laughlin…

Ct. 415, 62 L. Ed. -- (decided April 29, 1918) , that the suit of the employe against the railroad was brought under the federal Employers' Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 [Comp. St. 1916, §§ 8657-8665] ) ; and no claim is made that the attorney's lien statute of the state is inconsistent with that law or the constitutional provision concerning interstate commerce.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature