Background
Walter H. Sanborn was born on October 19, 1845 in Epsom, New Hampshire, United States. He was the son of Henry Frederick and Eunice (Davis) Sanborn. He descended from William Sanborn who came to Boston from England in 1632.
Walter H. Sanborn was born on October 19, 1845 in Epsom, New Hampshire, United States. He was the son of Henry Frederick and Eunice (Davis) Sanborn. He descended from William Sanborn who came to Boston from England in 1632.
He attended the local district school and academy, taught in the country districts after he was fifteen, and graduated from Dartmouth College as class valedictorian in 1867.
For three he was principal of the high school at Milford, N. H. , then went to St. Paul, Minn. , and studied law in the office of his uncle, Gen. John B. Sanborn. He was admitted to the bar Jan. 28, 1871, and joined his uncle in a partnership which lasted more than a score of years.
While his professional interests were always paramount with him, he also found time for other duties. From 1878 to 1880 and again from 1885 to 1892 he served in the St. Paul City Council; during the latter period he also had office in state and county bar associations.
His notable administrative work, as a judge, which he did in his judicial capacity included conducting receiverships of the Union Pacific Railway (1893 - 98), the Chicago and Great Western (1908 - 09), the St. Louis & San Francisco (1913 - 14), and the Denver & Rio Grande (1918 - 19). The best exemplification of his work, however, is found in his opinions, and the bar of the circuit soon learned that it had in him a master builder of the law.
Among the earliest of his significant opinions was that in the Omaha Bridge Cases in 1892 (51 Fed. Reporter, 309), when he upheld the right of the Rock Island Railway to use the Union Pacific bridge across the Missouri. In U. S. vs. Trans-Missouri Freight Association (58 Fed. Reporter, 58), 1893, he held the Sherman Anti-trust law inapplicable to an agreement between competing railways to maintain freight rates recommended as reasonable by a committee of their own choosing. His ruling was reversed by a vote of five to four in the Supreme Court (166 U. S. , 343), but he was able to say that a majority of the judges (including those of his own court) who had passed on the case were of his view, and a decade later (1903), in Whitwell vs. Continental Tobacco Company (125 Fed. Reporter, 454), he maintained a somewhat similar position, holding the same act inapplicable to a corporation and its employee with an arrangement for special rates on its products to purchasers who refrained from handling those of its competitors. The large number of personal injury cases which came to his court enabled him to specialize in that field.
His discussion (Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Omaha Railway Company vs. Elliot, 55 Fed. Reporter, 949) of what constitutes the proximate cause of an injury is probably unexcelled in judicial opinions in English; masterly expositions of the "fellow servant doctrine" are found in City of Minneapolis vs. Lundin (58 Fed. Reporter, 525), What Cheer Coal Co. vs. Johnson (56 Fed. Reporter, 810), and Gowen vs. Harley (56 Fed. Reporter, 973), all rendered in 1893.
An important precedent on contributory negligence is found in Union Pacific Railway Company vs. Jarvi (53 Fed. Reporter, 65), 1892; the employer's duty to warn minor employees of latent dangers, in Bohn Manufacturing Company vs. Erickson (55 Fed. Reporter, 943). He held the Federal power of naturalization exclusive, and his opinion in City of Minneapolis vs. Reum (56 Fed. Reporter, 576), 1893, is a valuable contribution to the literature of that subject.
Sanborn was selected by President Harrison as one of three judges of the newly created circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit. He exercised his commission for the remainder of his life - more than a generation. Later, he became presiding judge of the circuit. He conducted the receiverships of the Union Pacific Railroad (1893–98), the Chicago Great Western Railroad (1908-09), and the Frisco Railroad (1913–14). He also handed down important decisions in the Trans-Missouri Freight Association Case (1893), the Standard Oil Case (1909), and the Oklahoma Gas Case (1911).
He had entered the Masonic order, becoming interested especially in the Knights Templars.
With a strong intellect, highly trained, deep learning gathered by long and exhaustive study, and a clear and incisive style of expression developed by extensive judicial service he has had few superiors on the American bench.
On Nov. 10, 1874, he married Emily F. Bruce of Milford, N. H. ; two sons and two daughters were born of this marriage.
