Mason v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 28 February 1856 |
| Docket Number | No. 99.,99. |
| Parties | Peter Mason, plaintiff in error. vs. James F. Cooper, Supt. W. & A. Rail Road, defendant. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Assumpsit, in Whitfield Superior Court. Tried before Judge TrippE, October Term, 1855.
In this case the only question was, whether, under the Act of 1852, for organizing the Western & Atlantic Rail Road, an action against the superintendent can be maintained, without showing a previous attempt to settle the claim amicably with him. It was shown, that before the passage of the Act, an attempt had been made to settle with William L. Mitchell, the then chief engineer of the road.
The Court below held, that the action could not be maintained; and on this decision, error is assigned.
Stansell, for plaintiff in error.
Akin, for defendant.
By the Court. —Lumpkin, J., delivering the opinion.
The only question in this case is, whether an attempt to settle with Mr. Mitchell, the late chief engineer of the State road, and a rejection of the plaintiff's demand by that officer, will entitle Mason to sue under the Act of 1851-'2?
The first section of this Act declares, that from and after its passage, the Western & Atlantic Rail Road shall be gov-erned, and its business conducted, according to the provisions of said Act, as thereinafter contained.
The second section makes it the duty of the Governor to appoint an officer, who shall be styled the superintendent of the road, and who shall give bond and security, in the sum of $20,000, for the faithful discharge of his duties, and take an oath not to do any act, from fear, favor, reward or the hope thereof; but in all things to be governed solely by regard to the interest of the State. And amongst many other important functions committed to the superintendent, it is enacted, that he shall have power, with the approval of the Governor, to settle all claims against the road; "and should any dispute arise concerning any claim which cannot be amicably settled, the claimant shall be authorized to bring suits in any of the Superior Courts of the several counties of this State, through which the said road passes, against the superintendent, in his official character, " &c. (Pamphlet Laws, 11o, 111, 112.)
A citizen who seeks redress against the State, must abide by the law as it previously stood or he must comply with the existing Act. But under the law as it stood before 1851-'2, he had no right to legal redress upon a claim like this, notwithstanding its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Bates
...36 Cyc. 913, 1177; Miller v. Pillsbury, 164 Cal. 199, 128 P. 327; Westinghouse Elec. Co. v. Chambers, 169 Cal. 131, 145 P. 1025; Mason v. Cooper, 19 Ga. 543; Village v. State, 181 N.Y.S. 189; Looney Stryker, 249 P. 112. (4) The suit against relator is one against the State, which is the rea......
-
Florida State Hospital for the Insane v. Durham Iron Co.
...a right to bring such suit. See Murphy v. Lawrence, 2 Ga. 257, 258; Malsby v. Simmons Mfg. Co., 191 Ga. 477, 478, 12 S.E.2d 880; Mason v. Cooper, 19 Ga. 543, 545; Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527, 529, 15 L.Ed. 59 C.J. 300, 301, 304, 305, §§ 459, 461; 49 C.J. 145, § 157. 6. Under the precedin......
-
Thompson v. Cont'l Gin Co
...as if a private person were concerned. Central Bank & Trust Corporation v. State of Georgia, 139 Ga. 54, 76 S.E. 587. Also see Mason v. Cooper, 19 Ga. 543, 544, where it was said that when a state disrobed itself of its sovereignty and litigated in one of its courts with a private citizen, ......
-
Thompson v. Continental Gin Co.
...as if a private person were concerned. Central Bank & Trust Corporation v. State of Georgia, 139 Ga. 54, 76 S.E. 587. Also see Mason v. Cooper, 19 Ga. 543, 544, where it was said that when a state disrobed itself of sovereignty and litigated in one of its courts with a private citizen, it d......