Tobin v. Central Vermont Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1904 |
| Citation | 70 N.E. 431,185 Mass. 337 |
| Parties | TOBIN v. CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
S. A. Fuller and W. E. Bowden, for appellant.
J. L Thorndike and E. R. Thayer, for appellee.
In a declaration that by amendment finally contained five counts the plaintiff seeks to hold the defendant liable 'in an action of contract or tort, it being doubtful to which of these classes it belongs.' The substantial allegations admitted by the demurrer state that the plaintiff, while in the employment of receivers duly appointed by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Vermont to take possession of and operate the line of railroad owned and controlled by the Central Vermont Railroad Company, sustained personal injuries when acting as a fireman on one of the locomotive engines then in use. Afterwards, under a decree of the court, the receivers sold the railroad, with its equipment and property, to the defendant, and the sale was subsequently affirmed. In the decree, among other directions it was provided that 'on confirmation of such sale the purchaser or purchasers shall take title to the railroad property so purchased, subject to the lien of any and all debts, obligations, and liabilities of the receivers heretofore or hereafter lawfully incurred by or under the authority of the court, or arising out of the operation of such railroad by the receivers, and subject also to the right of this court to compel payment of the purchase price in the manner hereinbefore provided.' At the time the sale was made and the title passed the earnings from the operation of the road while in the hands of the receivers, and which had been expended by them in its equipment and improvement, amounted to a larger sum than the damages demanded in this action. No averment is made that permission to bring suit had been granted by the court having jurisdiction of the property, and by whose decree it had been sold, and it further appears that the receivers have been discharged, without having recognized or settled the plaintiff's claim. In order to maintain an action of tort the plaintiff must prove a wrongful act by the defendant from which he has suffered damages to his person; but the negligence of which he complains, and that caused his injuries, was the alleged carelessness of the receivers, who at the time were acting for the court, and could not be considered as the agents or servants, even, of the Central Vermont Railroad Company; while it is too clear for discussion that no such relation arises between them and the defendant, a corporation, organized apparently to take the property under the sale ordered by the court, and retaining the old corporate name except that 'railway' is substituted for 'railroad,' and neither the old nor the new company can be held to have taken by inheritance their liability to the plaintiff. Archambeau v. New York & New England Railroad Co., 170 Mass. 272, 273, 49 N.E. 435. Their discharge by the court of which they were officers, and under whose appointment they acted, relieves them from all personal liability of the nature described, and no action at law can now be maintained against them by the plaintiff. Archambeau v. Platt, 173 Mass. 249, 53 N.E. 816. He is therefore compelled to rely on an alleged contractual right, based on the conveyance made in conformity to the decree, in order to recover in an action of contract. But if the deed of the receivers is given the effect of a deed poll, by which the grantee assumes their obligations and agrees to perform them, the plaintiff was not a party to the transaction, and, being a stranger to the conveyance, cannot in law claim under it. Coffin v. Adams, 131 Mass. 133; New England Dredging Co. v. Rockport Granite Co., 149...
To continue reading
Request your trial