Davis v. Wechsler

Supreme Court of the United States · 1923 · Federal Courts

Federal Courtsadequate and independent state groundsstate procedural barsfederal rightsfederal control of railroadsDirector Generalvenuelocal practice

Facts

Plaintiff sued the Director General for injuries suffered on a railroad under federal control. The suit was filed in Jackson County, Missouri, although the cause of action arose in another county and plaintiff resided in Illinois when the cause accrued and when suit was brought. General Order 18-A required suits against carriers under federal control to be brought where the plaintiff resided at accrual or where the cause arose. The original and substituted federal defendants pleaded or adopted the objection that the suit had been brought in the wrong county, but the Missouri court held the objection waived by the substituted defendant's appearance.

Issue

May a state court, by applying its local practice regarding appearance and waiver, treat a federal defendant's venue objection under General Order 18-A as waived when the defendant plainly and contemporaneously adopted that objection? More generally, may local practice defeat a plainly and reasonably asserted federal right?

Rule

The assertion of a federal right, when plainly and reasonably made, may not be defeated by state local practice. A state court may not treat procedural acts required or accompanying a defense on the merits as waiving a federal defense when the federal right is clearly and contemporaneously asserted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez sued Owen Kline, a federally designated receiver for a rail line, in a Colorado state court in Denver for injuries that occurred in Pueblo. A federal directive allowed such suits only where the plaintiff lived when the claim accrued or where the injury occurred; Kline filed an answer denying liability and, in the same filing, expressly objected that Denver was the wrong county under the federal directive. Colorado practice treats any appearance as waiving venue objections.

If the Colorado courts hold that Kline waived the objection merely by appearing and filing a merits defense, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that a state court cannot, under the name of local practice, defeat a federal right or defense when it has been plainly and reasonably asserted. The majority made clear that the result does not depend on whether the federal rule is characterized as jurisdictional or as venue-related. A contemporaneous merits defense or appearance does not waive the federal objection when the federal right is clearly insisted upon.