Mardis v. Hines

Decision Date17 July 1919
Docket Number792.
PartiesMARDIS v. HINES, Director General of Railroads, et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

H. H Ragon, of Clarksville, Ark., and Jeptha H. Evans, of Boonville, Ark., for plaintiff.

Thos B. Pryor, of Ft. Smith, Ark., for defendants.

YOUMANS District Judge.

This is a suit by plaintiff, Mardis, against Walker D. Hines Director General of Railroads, and the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, for an injury sustained by the plaintiff while being transported as a passenger.

The amended complaint makes the following allegations:

'Walker D. Hines, as successor to William G. McAdoo, is the Director General of Railroads in the United States, having control for war and other purposes of the railroads in the United States, including the railroads of the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company.
'The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company is a railroad corporation of the state of Missouri, and on and prior to the 28th day of December, 1917, it was engaged in the business of a common carrier of freight and passengers for hire over its railroads. One of its railroads over which on said date it was doing the business of a common carrier of passengers and freight for hire extends through the counties of Pope, Johnson, Franklin, Crawford, and Sebastian in the state of Arkansas, with stations on its said line of road in each of said counties. On said 28th day of December, 1917, the President of the United States of America by his proclamation dated December 26, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Sec. 1974a, note), under and by virtue of the power conferred on him by the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, c. 418, 39 Stat. 619, took control of the railroad transportation systems in the United States, including the railroads of the defendant Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. In said proclamation it is provided as follows: 'It is hereby directed that the possession, control, operation, and utilization of such transportation systems hereby by me undertaken shall be exercised by and through William G. McAdoo, who is hereby appointed and designated Director General of Railroads. Said director may perform the duties imposed upon him, so long and to such extent as he shall determine, through the boards of directors, receivers, officers and employes of said systems of transportation. Until and except so far as said director shall from time to time by general or special orders otherwise provide, the boards of directors, receivers, officers and employes of the various transportation systems shall continue the operation thereof in the usual and ordinary course of the business of common carriers in the names of their respective companies.'
'The directors, officers, and employes continued to operate the railroad of the defendant company as authorized and provided for in the above-quoted paragraph of the proclamation of the President of the United States.
'On the morning of January 26, 1918, at Clarksville, Johnson county, Ark., the plaintiff became a passenger for hire on the west-bound passenger train of the defendant company, commonly called the 'Dinky,' running from Russellville, Ark., to Ft. Smith, Ark. The plaintiff was seated in the front end of the smoking car on said train, and when the train on which he was a passenger was a short distance east of the station of Denning Yards in Franklin county, Ark., and running west, it collided, head-on, with a freight train of defendant company, running east on the same track, meeting the passenger train on which plaintiff was riding as a passenger.
'By said collision both trains or portions thereof were wrecked or damaged, and the plaintiff was thrown with great force and violence several times against the walls, floor, and furniture of the car in which he was riding, and the plaintiff was greatly and permanently injured thereby in his right wrist and in his back and hips; one of plaintiff's dorsal vertebrae was dislocated, and his spine was otherwise injured, and the muscles, flesh, and nerves of his back were wrenched, bruised, and torn, and his entire nervous system was shocked and permanently injured.
'Said collision and consequent injury to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence of the engineer, conductor, and other servants of the defendant company who were operating said freight train, in running said train east out of Denning Yards on the track and time of the passenger train on which plaintiff was a passenger, and by the negligence of said defendants in causing, allowing, and permitting the passenger train on which plaintiff was being transported and the freight train with which it collided to run in opposite directions, meeting each other on the same track, at the same place, and at the same time. * * *
'By reason of the injuries so caused to him by the negligence of the defendants the plaintiff has sustained damages to an extent that he is unable fully to estimate, but he places the same at the sum of $50,000.
'By section 6661 of Kirby's Digest of the statutes of the state of Arkansas the plaintiff has a lien on the railroad of the defendant company in the state of Arkansas for the damages aforesaid, and said lien applies to the roadbed, building, equipments, income, franchise, right of way, and all other appurtenances of said railroad superior and paramount, whether prior in time or not, to that of all persons interested in said railroad as managers, lessees, mortgagees, trustees, and beneficiaries under trusts or owners.

'The premises considered, the plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Crim v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1921
    ...dismissed therefrom." Rutherford v. Union Pacific R. Co. (D.C.) 254 F. 880; Dahn v. McAdoo, Dr. Gen. of Rds. (D.C.) 256 F. 549; Mardis v. Hines (D.C.) 258 F. 945; v. Detroit, G.H. & M. Ry. Co., 208 Mich. 403, 175 N.W. 580, 8 A.L.R. 964; Sagona v. Pullman Co. (Sup.) 174 N.Y.Supp. 536; Castle......
  • Preston v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1922
    ...v. United States, 263 F. 543; Act of Congress, Aug. 29, 1916, 39 Stat. 645 (Comp. St. 1974a); Haubert v. Railroad, 259 F. 361; Mardis v. Hines, 258 F. 945; v. Tel. Co., 219 S.W. 107; Cravens v. Hines, 218 S.W. 912; Rutherford v. Railroad, 254 F. 880; Armstrong v. United States, 13 Wall. 154......
  • Hines v. Dahn
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • August 2, 1920
    ... ... v. Cerecedo Hermanos y ... Compania, 209 U.S. 338, 28 Sup.Ct. 532, 52 L.Ed. 821 ... There are well-reasoned cases in the federal courts ... sustaining the views herein expressed. They are ... Rutherford v. Union Pac. (D.C.) 254 F. 880; U.S. v ... Kambeitz (D.C.) 256 F. 247; Mardis v. Hines ... (D.C.) 258 F. 945; Haubert v. Baltimore & O.R. Co ... (D.C.) 259 F. 361; Nash v. Southern Pacific Co ... (D.C.) 260 F. 280; Westbrook et al. v. Director ... General of Railroads (D.C.) 263 F. 211; Hatcher & ... Snyder v. A., T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (D.C.) 258 F. 952; ... ...
  • Geddes v. Davis
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 21, 1922
    ... ... A. Coast Line R. Co., 110 S.C. 259, 96 ... S.E. 530; Jensen v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 255 F ... 795; McAdoo v. Burch, 254 F. 140; Mardis v ... Hines, 258 F. 945; affirmed 267 F. 171; Rutherford ... v. Union P. Ry. Co., 254 F. 880; Blevins v ... Hines, 264 F. 1005; Hines v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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