Davis v. Donovan the Mary Ethel

• Decision Date: 26 May 1924
• Docket Number: No. 757,757
• Citation: 265 U.S. 257,44 S.Ct. 513,68 L.Ed. 1008
• Parties: DAVIS, Director General of Railroads, v. DONOVAN et al. THE MARY ETHEL
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

265 U.S. 257

44 S.Ct. 513

68 L.Ed. 1008

DAVIS, Director General of Railroads,

v DONOVAN et al. THE MARY ETHEL.

No. 757.

Argued April 10, 1924.

Decided May 26, 1924.

Mr. Evan Shelby, of New York City, for petitioner.

Mr. Geo. V. A. McCloskey, of New York City, for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 258-260 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

June 13, 1919, respondent Donovan, owner of the Mary Ethel, filed a libel in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the 'Director General of Railroads of the United States (New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company)'—for whom James C. Davis, Agent, etc, has been substituted—and another, wherein he asked to recover for damage sustained by his vessel when in collision with the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company's car float No. 46. He alleged that the collision resulted solely from negligence of the float and those in charge of her; that the President took possession of all systems of transportation December 28, 1917, through the Director General; and 'that at all the times herein mentioned the car float No. 46 was managed, operated, and owned by the said New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company under the control or operation of the said Director General of Railroads.'

The 'Director General of Railroads of the United States (New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad)' answered and denied liability.

It appeared from the evidence that while moored at Pier 2, Erie Basin, March 28, 1919, the Mary Ethel suffered damage by contact with car float No. 46 of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, negligently cast loose by a New York Central Railroad tug. Both railroads and the tug were then being operated by the Director General.

The District Court found and held:

'The last intervening cause of the accident which occurred to the Mary Ethel was the fact that the New York Central came in and after removing the New York Central barge allowed the No. 46 to go adrift, but that fact will not relieve the Director General, operating the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad from liability, inasmuch as he is the same entity that is operating the New York Central.'

A decree for the libelant was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. It said:

'The contention of appellant is that, 'even though it be admitted that the New York Central tug was under the control and operation of the Director General of Railroads operating the New York Central Railroad, the Director General of Railroads operating the New Haven Railroad, being a separate and distinct person, is in no way responsible.'

'Appellant seeks to avoid the decision of this court in Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Hines, Agent, 273 Fed. 774, by the effect, as he contends, of Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554. * * * In our view, the opinion of the Supreme Court * * * sustains the Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. Case, supra. * * *

'The sole point is that the outside litigant, such as this libelant, need look only to the Director General as the party to respond for damage caused by negligence on the part of any of the railroads which he was operating, pursuant to the federal control statutes.'

We cannot accept the conclusion reached by the court below.

During the year 1919 the United States were in possession and complete control, by the Director General of the important railroad road systems throughout the country. Northern Pacific Ry. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135, 39 Sup. Ct. 502, 63 L. Ed. 897. As the representative of the...