Jakubowski v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey

Decision Date27 January 1950
PartiesJAKUBOWSKI v. CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Samuel M. Cole, New York City, Attorney for Plaintiff.

John J. McElhinny, New York City, Attorney for Defendant.

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

The defendant has made a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.

The action is brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, its agents, servants and employees.

Plaintiff alleges that he was an employee of defendant Central Railroad Company of New Jersey. If plaintiff was in fact an employee of defendant at the time of the injury, there is no jurisdictional question, since this would be a properly brought suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51-60.

Liability under that Act is based upon an employee-employer relationship. Sec. 51; Hull v. Philadelphia & Reading R. Co., 1920, 252 U.S. 475, 40 S.Ct. 358, 64 L.Ed. 670. See Cimorelli v. New York Central R. R. Co., 6 Cir., 1945, 148 F.2d 575, 577. It appears that from October 30, 1939 to August 30, 1949, the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey was in reorganization and was operated by a Trustee, one Walter P. Gardner. The complaint alleges that the injury to plaintiff occurred on or about August 13, 1947, at which time the Trustee was operating the railroad. The title and right to possession of all property owned and possessed by the bankrupt vests in the Trustee. Isaacs, Trustee v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co., 1931, 282 U.S. 734, 51 S.Ct. 270, 75 L.Ed. 645. Therefore the defendant railroad company cannot be held liable as employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for the negligence of the employees of its trustee in reorganization. Detwiler v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., D.C.Minn.1936, 15 F.Supp. 541; cf. Dugan v. Gardner, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1946, 68 F.Supp. 709. Consequently jurisdiction cannot be predicated upon that Act.

Plaintiff in his complaint alleges negligence on the part of defendant itself. Furthermore he also indicates that he may be proceeding against the defendant pursuant to an order of the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey. In the Matter of the Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey, Order No. 605, August 30, 1949, whereby the defendant is restored to custody of its property and is directed to "12 * * * (a) Pay, satisfy and discharge all indebtedness, obligations and liability of the Trustee arising on or after October 30, 1939, in respect of the operation or administration by the Trustee of the property of the Debtor in these proceedings to the extent that the same shall not have been paid or discharged by the Trustee on or before the restoration date." (p. 11 of Order).

If either of these is the substance of the cause of action, the jurisdiction of this Court could only be sustained on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The Judicial Code requires in this instance, for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, that the parties be citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332. Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of New Jersey and defendant is a corporation incorporated apparently only in New Jersey. It is settled law that for purposes of the jurisdiction of a federal court a corporation is a citizen only of the state in which it is incorporated, and it does not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Wagner v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • November 20, 1956
    ...(Detwiler v. Chicago, R. I. and Pac. Ry. Co., D.C.Minn. 1st Div., 15 F.Supp. 541, 542)"; and see Jakubowski v. Central R. Co. of N. J., D.C.1950, 88 F.Supp. 258. "A receiver appointed by a court of equity to hold, manage, and operate an insolvent railroad is not the agent of the insolvent r......
  • Nyberg v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • August 12, 1954
    ...Telephone & Telegraph Co., 4 Cir., 279 F. 806, 808, 809; Thomas v. South Butte Mining Co., 9 Cir., 230 F. 968; Jakubowski v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, D.C., 88 F. Supp. 258; Gorgone v. Maryland Casualty Co., D.C., 32 F.Supp. 150; Silverstein v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California, ......
  • Moore v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 41
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 21, 1950
    ...96, 81 L.Ed. 70. See Moore, Commentary on the United States Judicial Code, 144-148 (1949).5 Reversed. 2 Cf. Jakubowski v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, D.C., 88 F.Supp. 258. 3 See, e. g., Dioguardi v. Durning, 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 774. 4 See, e. g., Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT