Bolton v. Hines
| Decision Date | 03 May 1920 |
| Docket Number | 380 |
| Citation | 221 S.W. 459,143 Ark. 601 |
| Parties | BOLTON v. HINES |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
On the 20th day of June, 1919, Clifton Bolton, by Robert Bolton, his father and next friend, sued Walker D. Hines, Director General, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, successor of B F. Bush, Receiver St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad Company, for damages for personal injuries received by him.
He alleges that he was injured on the 6th day of July, 1916 while in the employment of the defendant and that at the time he was injured he was returning from work and that his injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant's brakeman in shoving him off of one of the defendant's trains while it was running at a high rate of speed.
A demurrer was sustained to the complaint and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, was made a defendant.
The court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff's amended complaint. The plaintiff elected not to plead further. Thereupon the court dismissed his amended complaint, and from the judgment rendered the plaintiff has appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
Oscar H. Winn, for appellant.
1. The complaint states a meritorious cause of action. The suit was filed in due season and time on the relations arising either ex delicto or ex contractu. There is no legal ground for this demurrer whatever. 125 Ark. 77-85; 87 Id. 70. The statute of limitations does not apply.
2. The law of the case is stated in 23 R. C. L., par. 55. A corporation is liable after the discharge of the receiver and the restoration of the property to the owner or purchaser of same. Ib. A meritorious cause of action was stated and the demurrer should be overruled and the cause heard on the pleadings and evidence before a jury. 164 U.S. 636; 29 Am St. 675; 31 Id. 374; 18 L. R. A. 60; 23 R. C. L. par. 123.
Troy Pace and Ponder & Gibson, for appellees.
1. There was no proper service on the railroad company or the Director General, Hines.
2. The cases cited by appellant fail to sustain his contention. The property was sold and purchased and not turned back to the same company. 18 Am. St. 60; 69 Id. 206; 22 Id. 56. This case is governed by 134 Ark. 366; 74 Id. 368; 1 Elliott on Railroads, § 526; 33 Cyc. 338; 136 Ark. 193. Hines as Director General was not the successor of Bush, Receiver. 134 Ark. 366. The demurrer was properly sustained. Cases supra.
OPINIONHART, J. (after stating the facts).
Under the Acts of Congress, commonly called the Federal Control Acts, possession, control, and management of the railroad company's line of road was completely and exclusively vested in the director general. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135, 63 L.Ed. 897, 39 S.Ct. 502.
According to the allegations of the complaint the plaintiff sustained his injuries on the 6th day of July, 1916. This was before the passage of the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, giving the President the right in time of war to take possession and control of transportation systems. Subsequently, the act of March 21, 1918, was passed. It provided for the operation of transportation systems under Federal Control and provided for the Government taking complete possession and control of the railroads for the purpose of operating them. The act, however, did not render the Government liable for injuries received prior to the time that the director general of railroads took possession of them. Chap. 25, U. S Comp. Stat. of 1918. Nowhere in either of the acts is the Government made liable for a claim against the railroad which accrued prior to the time that the director general of railroads took possession of them. Hence, the plaintiff's cause of action having accrued before the director general of railroads took possession of them under the authority conferred upon him by the acts of Congress above referred to, the court properly sustained a demurrer to the amended complaint. The plaintiff could have pursued his cause of action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Heidtmueller
...Cravens v. Hines, Dir.Gen. (Mo.App.) 218 S.W. 912; Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co. v. Wurzbach (Tex.Civ.App.) 219 S.W. 252; Bolton v. Hines, 143 Ark. 601, 221 S.W. 459; Commonwealth v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 189 Ky. 309, S.W. 847, 11 A.L.R. 1446--to the effect that recovery cannot be had against a c......
-
Payne v. Stockton
...10 S.W. 711. 4. The property was in the hands of the United States government and in the hands of the receivers. 267 F. 105; 267 Id. 171; 221 S.W. 459. The judgment against the Texas & Railway Company is in violation of § 1, art. 14, Const. U. S. 5. Instruction No. 1 for plaintiff is error.......
-
Bolton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
...Bush, Receiver St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad Company." The fact alleged in the complaint, as shown in the opinion in Bolton v. Hines, supra, was Bolton was injured before Hines, as Director General, assumed charge of the railroad, and the point decided was that the act of Con......
-
Bolton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
...Company. From a judgment dismissing the action on the ground of former adjudication, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded. See, also, 221 S. W. 459. Oscar H. Winn, of Little Rock, for Thos. B. Pryor, of Ft. Smith, and Ponder & Gibson, of Walnut Ridge, for appellee. SMITH, J. On May 17, ......