This matter involves two separate actions, one by William C.
Ferguson and the other by the administratrix of the estate of
Lonnie Moore against the Philadelphia Transportation Company, the
former having been injured and the latter having been killed
while in the employ of said company. The case arises on a motion
to dismiss by the defendant, the Philadelphia Transportation
Company, and the sole question at issue in the matter is whether
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act are
There are no trolleys or busses operated to Camden by the
defendant, and it has no connection with any bridge systems
leaving from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. No freight or mail is
carried on any part of the defendant's system, although under
Pennsylvania law the street railways chartered as common carriers
are required upon demand of the United States Government to carry
mails at a price mutually agreed upon, or if no agreement, the
sum is to be fixed by the Public Service Commission. Act of April
22, 1909, P.L. 114 § 1, 67 P.S. § 1248.
An examination of the authorities which have considered the
question of whether street railway companies may be brought under
the regulation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, supra,
hold that the length of its road or its track is not to be
considered controlling in the determination of whether the Act is
applicable, United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co., 8 Cir.,
162 F. 556, and the converse is equally true that it does not of
itself compel a finding that a common carrier by railroad exists;
for while it is true that certain defendant routes extend for
short distances beyond the limits of the City of Philadelphia and
that it does operate some twenty-six cars owned by the Delaware
River Bridge Joint Commission under an agreement with that body
over the Bridge and for a distance of about 1.2 miles from the
center line of the Bridge to the Broadway Station in Camden, New
Jersey, these locations are for the purposes of transportation
practically part of the City of Philadelphia and are but
extensions of the city streetcar system. A careful reading of the
cases gives the Court this view, as evidenced in Mangum v.
Capital Traction Co., 59 App.D.C. 241, 39 F.2d 286, and cited
with approval in Keffer v. Capital Transit Co., 87 U.S.App.D.C.
13, 183 F.2d 808, where the facts are closely analogous to the
situation here in question and which point up the difference
between a street railway and a railroad or common carrier by
railroad as was the case in Washington Railway & Electric Co. v.
Scala, 244 U.S. 630, 37 S.Ct. 654, 61 L.Ed. 1360, pressed upon us
for consideration by the plaintiff.