Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Laurel Coal Min. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1922
• Docket Number: 7682.
• Citation: 276 F. 1019
• Parties: PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO. et al. v. LAUREL COAL MINING CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

276 F. 1019

PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO. et al. v. LAUREL COAL MINING CO.

No. 7682.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

January 11, 1922

George Ellis and John F. Whalen, both of Pottsville, Pa., for plaintiffs.

A. S Olmsted, Jr., and William A. Glasgow, Jr., both of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

THOMPSON District Judge.

This suit was brought in the court of common pleas of Schuylkill county, Pa., September 11, 1920. The defendant procured a removal order to this court upon the ground of diversity of citizenship. The principal ground of demurrer is the misjoinder of the parties plaintiff.

The suit is based upon the following allegations: The defendant during the period of federal control, made shipments of coal over the Philadelphia & Reading Railway from its colliery in Schuylkill county, Pa., consigned to a consignee at Port Reading, N.J. An embargo had been placed on shipments of the sizes of coal consigned, and was in force when the shipment was made. The plaintiffs requested other shipping instructions, and, not receiving them, the coal, after being weighed, was held by the plaintiffs, whereby demurrage charges accrued. Demand was made upon the defendant for the freight charges, demurrage charges, and war tax thereon. The charges not having been paid, the Director General of Railroads caused the coal to be sold for the charges. The proceeds of the sale not being sufficient to pay the charges this suit was brought for the difference between the proceeds of sale and the amount of the freight and demurrage charges the war tax, and the costs of the sale.

Upon a demurrer for misjoinder of plaintiffs, the question to be determined is whether either or both plaintiffs have a remedial interest in the cause of action asserted. While the suit was brought after the termination of federal control, it is based upon a claim for moneys derived from operation of the carrier during such control.

The effect of sections 1 and 12 of the Federal Control Act of March 21, 1918 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Secs. 3115 3/4a, 3115 3/4l), was to vest the railway operating income and moneys derived from operation of the carriers during federal control in the United States. Upon a claim accruing to the United States, the Director General, appointed pursuant to section 211 of the Transportation Act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 469), is, under the practice followed and universally approved by the courts...