Summary

Portrait of William Howard Taft William Howard Taft Chicago Railway Company v. Nye-Schneider-Fowler Company…

Counsel for the plaintiff in error contends that the Legislature has granted no such right of subrogation in this statute; that it is not a right, but purely a matter of equity under the circumstances. We cannot follow this distinction. We have here a construction of this statute by the Supreme Court of the state, in which that tribunal holds that, under all the circumstances to which this statute can apply, subrogation does exist.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Howard Taft William Howard Taft Chicago Railway Company v. Nye-Schneider-Fowler Company…

In other words, the Supreme Court, if any amount over the tender is recovered by its judgment, must fix a fee compensating the attorneys for the claimant for their work on the appeal, however excessive the recovery below and however much reduced on the appeal, if more than the original tender. Thus what we have here is a requirement that the carrier shall pay the attorneys of the claimant full compensation for their labors in resisting its successful effort on appeal to reduce an unjust and excessive claim against it. This we do not think is fair play.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Howard Taft William Howard Taft Chicago Railway Company v. Nye-Schneider-Fowler Company…

The evident theory of the amendment of section 6063, as thus interpreted, is that the burden of the litigation both in the trial and appellate court could be avoided by reasonable assiduity of the defendant carrier in availing itself of its peculiar sources of knowledge, ascertaining the actual damage and making a genuine tender of what it believes to be due, and if the ultimate recovery is not more than the tender, that the claimant shall have neither interest nor attorney's fee.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature