MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation has a rather involved history. In 1946, while in the employ of respondent railroad, petitioner
In March, 1948, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the railroad was subject to service in New York. 166 F.2d 788. Thereupon petitioner moved to dismiss his Texas action. When the district court refused to dismiss, petitioner appealed and also applied for a writ of prohibition to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court declined to issue the writ. 167 F.2d 471 (1948). In No. 275, petitioner requests this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals action. And in No. 119 Misc., we are asked to issue a writ of prohibition directing the District Court for the Northern District of Texas not to proceed with the trial. We are advised that counsel have arranged that further progress of the Texas trial shall be held in abeyance pending our decision. We are this day denying those petitions. See post, p. 912.
When the New York cause was returned to the district court, after we had denied the railroad's petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' determination that it might be sued there, 335 U.S. 814 (1948), petitioner moved for a preference in the order of trial. The court below, the United States District Court for the Southern
In support of his motion, petitioner urges that the general purposes of the 1948 revision of Title 28 by the Congress indicate no intention to "emasculate" the right to choose venue afforded under the Federal Employers' Liability Act; that "any civil action," as used in § 1404 (a) of the Code, refers only to civil actions specified in the Venue Chapter of Title 28 (§§ 1391-1406, inclusive); and that the court below ignored the known temper of legislative opinion" as revealed chiefly by Congressional action on the Jennings Bill.
We fail to see anything in these contentions which can distinguish this case from Ex parte Collett, decided this day, ante, p. 55. In that opinion we have demonstrated that the venue provisions of § 6 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act are one thing and the transfer provisions of § 1404 (a) of the present Judicial Code another; that "any civil action" means what it says; and that Congress was fully informed as to the significance
[For opinion of MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE concurring in the result, see ante, p. 72.]
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS in United States v. National City Lines, post, p. 84.