Granquist v. Duluth, M. & N. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 April 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23444.,23444.
• Citation: 193 N.W. 126,155 Minn. 217
• Parties: GRANQUIST v. DULUTH, M. & N. RY. CO. et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

155 Minn. 217

193 N.W. 126

GRANQUIST

v.DULUTH, M. & N. RY. CO. et al.

No. 23444.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 13, 1923.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; H. A. Dancer, Judge.

Action by Mathilda Granquist, administratrix of the estate of Anton Granquist, deceased, against the Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Company and others. From an order denying a motion to amend her complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

When the federal government took control of the railroads in this country, they were taken over and dealt with as separate entities. The several systems did not lose their identity, the situation being analogous to that which would have existed if there had been a general receivership of each system. They were severally dealt with as active, responsible parties, answerable for their own wrongs, and there was no such consolidation as rendered all the railroad companies in effect one company, hence service of process in an action against the agent of the President under the Transportation Act of 1920 brought him into court only as the representative of the carrier whose agent or officer was served with process in the manner prescribed by section 206 of the act.

The court properly denied a motion to amend the complaint by charging such agent with liability for negligence in the operation of a railroad, no service of process having been made upon any officer or agent of the railroad company. James Manahan, of St. Paul, Lathers & Hoag, of Duluth, and Fesenbeck & Yetka, of Cloquet, for appellant.

Baldwin, Baldwin, Holmes & Mayall, of Duluth, for respondent.

LEES, C.

This action grew out of the great forest fires which, on October 12, 1918, destroyed many lives and much property in Northern Minnesota. The action was brought against the Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Company, then under federal control, John Barton Payne, as the Agent designated by the President under the Transportation Act of 1920, two railroad companies not under federal control, and two St. Louis county lumber companies, to recover damages for negligently permitting fires to start and spread over territory in the vicinity of Duluth, thereby causing the death of plaintiff's intestate on the date above mentioned. In accordance with the practice finally approved by this court in federal control cases, plaintiff subsequently dismissed as to the Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Company. In January, 1923, she moved to amend her complaint by adding thereto this allegation:

‘That the Great Northern Railway Company was and is a common carrier, operating a line of railway between Carlton and Grand Rapids and between Brookston and Malden and Fermoy and Kelly Lake and between other points on said line of railway in the state of Minnesota.’

The purpose of the amendment was to allege negligence in the operation of the Great Northern road while it was under federal control, as well as in the operation of the Duluth, Missabe & Northern. There was opposition to the motion, and, after a hearing, the court denied it, holding that it had no authority to permit such an amendment and refusing to exercise the discretion which the courts ordinarily possess in passing upon applications for the amendment of pleadings. The order recites that it was admitted that service on the Agent of the President had been made solely by serving the summons on the treasurer of the Duluth, Missabe & Northern; that no service had ever been made on any officer, agent, or employee of the Great Northern; and that plaintiff's failure to plead the matter set forth in the proposed amendment was due to inadvertence. This appeal brings the order here for review.

The original complaint contains no reference whatever to the Great Northern Railway system. So far as the representative of the government is concerned, the sole charge of negligence relates to the operation of the Duluth, Missabe & Northern system. Appellant takes the position that after the railroad systems of the country passed under federal control, first the Director General, and later the Agent designated by the President, was the only necessary or proper party defendant, where suit was brought to enforce a cause of action arising out of the operation of any such railroad system. More specifically, it is contended that the service of the summons brought the Agent of the President into court not only as the representative of the United States in control of the Duluth, Missabe & Northern, but also as its representative in control of all other railroads which had been taken over. The contention is that all the railroad properties in the United States under such control were organized into a unified national system of transportation under a single head, and that service...