Aetna Mills v. Davis

• Decision Date: 01 July 1922
• Parties: AETNA MILLS v. DAVIS, Agent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

242 Mass. 255

136 N.E. 380

AETNA MILLS

v.DAVIS, Agent.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

July 1, 1922.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; George A. Sanderson, Judge.

Action by the AEtna Mills against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company for the loss of goods shipped by freight in which James C. Davis, Agent, etc., was substituted as defendant. Reported from the superior court, after the denial of motions by the original defendant for judgment in its favor and dismissal of the action against it, and by the substituted defendant for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Ordered that the railroad's application for its dismissal from the action be granted.

Goodwin, Procter, Field & Hoar and Edward C. Thayer, all of Boston, and George A. Furness, of Brookline, for plaintiff.

Arthur W. Blackman, of Boston, for defendants.

DE COURCY, J.

By writ dated July 11, 1921, and returnable in the superior court August 1st, the plaintiff brought an action against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, for alleged loss of goods shipped by freight from Boston to New York on December 13, 1919. In November, 1921, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its writ and declaration by substituting as defendant James C. Davis, Director General of Railroads, as Agent under the Transportation Act, 1920. The motion was allowed, and process was issued summoning said Davis to answer in the action, and making him defendant therein. The process was served upon a person authorized to be served in proceedings brought against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, with which corporation a contract had been made by or through the President of the United States for the conduct of litigation arising out of operation during federal control. See Transportation Act 1920 (41 U. S. Sts. at Large, 456) § 206(b).

On December 28, 1921, the railroad company moved that judgment be entered in its favor, or that the action be dismissed as against it. On January 4, 1922, said James C. Davis appeared specially, by counsel, and filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction as against him. Both motions were denied by the trial judge, who reported to this court the questions involved.

It is now settled that a cause of action such as is here declared on, arising while the carrier was under federal control, should be brought against the Director General of Railroads. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. 593, 65 L. Ed. 1087;Nominski v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 239 Mass. 254, 132 N. E. 30. It was provided in section 10 of the Control Act (40 U. S. Sts. at Large, 451 [U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 3/4j]):

‘* * * Carriers while under federal control shall be subject to all laws and liabilities as common carriers, whether arising under state or federal laws or at common law, * * *’ and that ‘actions at law or suits in equity may be brought by and against such carriers and judgments rendered as now provided by law.’

The Transportation Act of 1920, by which federal control of railroads was terminated, contained the following pertinent section:

‘206(a). Actions at law, suits in equity and proceedings in admiralty, based on causes of action arising out of the possession, use, or operation by the President of the railroad or system of transportation of any carrier (under the provisions of the Federal Control Act, or of the Act of August 29, 1916) of such character as prior to federal control could have been brought against such carrier, may, after the termination of federal control, be brought against an agent designated by the President for such purpose, which agent shall be designated * * * within thirty days after the passage of this act. Such actions, suits, or proceedings may, within the periods of limitation now prescribed by state or federal statutes but not later than two years from the date of the passage of this act, be brought in any court which but for federal control would have had jurisdiction of the cause of action had it arisen against such carrier.

‘(b) Process may be served upon any agent or officer of the carrier operating such railroad or system of transportation, if such agent or officer is authorized by law to be served with process in proceedings brought against such carrier and if a contract has been made with such carrier by or through the President for the conduct of litigation arising out of operation during federal control.’

It seems clear from the language and purpose of said act that the present cause of action could have been brought originally against the defendant Davis, and in the state court. Neither by the terms of said section 206, nor by the nature of the wrong complained of, is exclusive jurisdiction given to the federal courts. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway v. Wallace, 223 U. S. 481, 32 Sup. Ct. 205, 56 L. Ed. 516. The proceeding was brought within the period prescribed, and service of process was made in accordance with the act.

The main contention of the defendants apparently is that the Transportation Act, while granting the right to sue the government for causes arising out of federal control, does not permit the substitution of the defendant Davis for the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, by amendment. Undoubtedly Congress, when creating a right against the federal government, might have provided an exclusive remedy to be enforced in a particular way. See Alabama & Vicksburg Railway v. Journey, 257 U. S. 111,41 Sup. Ct. 6, 66 L. Ed. --;McArthur Brothers Co. v. Commonwealth, 197 Mass. 137, 83 N. E. 334. But the Transportation Act expressly provided that the rights therein created might be enforced in a state court. And Congress presumably intended thereby that the state court should exercise the general jurisdiction which it already possessed in hearing and determining the civil and...