Davis v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 16 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 32,32 |
| Citation | 269 U.S. 114,70 L.Ed. 186,46 S.Ct. 34 |
| Parties | DAVIS, Agent, etc., v. ALEXANDER et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Wm. F. Collins, of El Reno, Okl., and T. P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Fred E. Suits, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondents.
Cattle shipped during federal control over the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific System from stations in New Mexico, through Texas to Oklahoma City, were negligently injured in transit. To recover the damages suffered this suit was brought in a state court of Oklahoma against James C. Davis, as Agent designated by the President, pursuant to section 206(a) of Transportation Act February 28, 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 456, 461 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10071 1/4 cc). The injury was inflicted partly in New Mexico, partly in Texas, and partly in Oklahoma. The main controversy was whether plaintiffs could recover for the injury suffered in Texas. The jury returned a verdict for the entire damages. Judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the highest court of the state. 93 Okl. 159, 220 P. 358. A petition for a writ of certiorari was granted under section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1214). 265 U. S. 577, 44 S. Ct. 634, 68 L. Ed. 1188.
The lines of the Rock Island in Texas were owned by a subsidiary-the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company, a Texas corporation. The petition described Davis as Agent, United States Railroad Administration, in charge of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad and Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railroad. In the trial court it was assumed that effective service of the summons pursuant to section 206(b) was made only upon Davis as Agent in charge of the Pacific. There the shippers sought to recover against him as such on the ground that the transportation service undertaken was for the system; that, under federal control as before, the Pacific was the dominant carrier and operated, either alone or jointly with the Gulf, the whole system including the Gulf lines; and that recovery for all damages suffered could, therefore, be had against Davis as Agent in charge of the Pacific. The defendant insisted that the Director General had operated the Pacific and the Gulf, not as parts of a single system, but as individual and distinct entities. The shippers introduced substantial evidence in support of their allegations. The case was submitted to the jury under instructions which made it clear that the verdict must be limited to the damage suffered on lines owned by the Pacific, unless the jury should find that the Gulf lines were being operated with the other Rock Island lines as part of a single system.
To these instructions exceptions were duly taken, but the Supreme Court of Oklahoma deemed it unnecessary to pass upon their correctness. It affirmed the judgment on the ground that the Director...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Broad River Power Co.
... ... attention to the following cases: Brown v. Am. Ry ... Express Co., 128 S.C. 428, 123 S.E. 97; Davis v ... Alexander, 269 U.S. 114, 46 S.Ct. 34, 70 L.Ed. 186; ... Huggins v. Com. Sav. Bank, 141 S.C. 480, 140 S.E ... 177; Terry v. Sou ... ...
-
Turpin v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
...officers on the Truck Lines board; so, they say, the Truck Lines is merely an agent of the railroad. They cite: Davis v. Alexander, 269 U.S. 114, 46 S.Ct. 34, 70 L.Ed. 186; Eddings v. Collins Pine Co., D.C., 140 F.Supp. 622; Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 5 Cir., 265 F.2d 75; Del......
-
Austrian v. Williams
...& St. Paul Railway Company v. Minneapolis Civic & Commerce Association, 247 U.S. 490, 38 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed. 1229; Davis v. Alexander, 269 U.S. 114, 46 S.Ct. 34, 70 L.Ed. 186. 17a The shares were held by Central States as collateral for cash loans to 18 In this matter we are not concerned w......
-
Checuti v. Conrail, 3:03 CV 7215.
...not labeled as such, there are a number of FELA cases that are consistent with the sub-servant doctrine. See Davis v. Alexander, 269 U.S. 114, 46 S.Ct. 34, 70 L.Ed. 186 (1925); S. Ry. Co. v. Crosby, 201 F.2d 878 (4th Cir.1953); Eddings v. Collins Pine Co., 140 F.Supp. 622 (N.D.Cal. 1956); T......
-
Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service, the meaning of "income," and sky-is-falling tax commentary.
...a partnership under state law). (135) See Macomber, 252 U.S. at 220-38 (Brandeis & Clarke, JJ., dissenting). (136) Burk-Waggoner, 269 U.S. at 114; see also Helvering v. Indep. Life Ins. Co., 292 U.S. 371, 379 (1934) ("The rental value of the building used by the owner does not constitut......