Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Bobo

• Decision Date: 06 June 1916
• Docket Number: 2842,2843.,2790
• Citation: 232 F. 708
• Parties: MEMPHIS ST. RY. CO. v. BOBO. SAME v. MOORE. SAME v. McCOY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

232 F. 708

MEMPHIS ST. RY. CO. v. BOBO. SAME v. MOORE. SAME v. McCOY.

Nos. 2790, 2842, 2843.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 6, 1916

Roane Waring, of Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.

Caruthers Ewing, of Memphis, Tenn., for defendant in error Bobo.

W Crabtree, of Memphis, Tenn., for defendants in error Moore and McCoy.

Before KNAPPEN and DENISON, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District judge.

SESSIONS District Judge.

The Memphis Street Railway Company (defendant) operates an interurban electric railway from the city of Memphis to the town of Raleigh, running east and west through the town of Binghamton, where it crosses at right angles the double tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad. On September 17 1914, at about 6:30 p.m., a train of defendant's cars consisting of a motor car and a trailer, approached this crossing from the west and stopped to allow a long southbound freight train to pass upon the west set of the Illinois Central tracks. While the freight train was passing, the conductor of the electric train stood upon the ground near the front of the motor car. Immediately after the southbound train had cleared the crossing, the conductor walked east across both tracks and signaled his train to come ahead. At that time his view south was obstructed by a cloud of dust and smoke from the southbound freight train. In obedience to the signal so given the motorman started his cars, and when the trailer was upon the east Illinois Central tracks it was struck by a northbound freight train, and many passengers were killed and injured. Walter Owens and Ivy B. Douglas were killed, and E. O. McCoy was seriously injured. Hence these suits.

In each of the two suits brought by administrators, the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee is challenged upon the alleged ground of want of the requisite diversity of citizenship of the parties. The defendant is a citizen of Tennessee. The administrators J. W Bobo and S. C. Moore, are both nonresidents of Tennessee and citizens of other states.

'That whenever a nonresident of the state of Tennessee qualifies in this state as the executor or administrator of a person dying in or leaving assets or property in this state, that for the purposes of suing or being sued, he shall be treated as a citizen of this state.'

The insistence of the railway company is that, by virtue of this statute, 'when a nonresident of Tennessee qualifies as administrator of an estate of a resident of Tennessee, that nonresident becomes a citizen of Tennessee. ' This contention cannot be sustained. It must be assumed that the state Legislature by this statute intended to fix the status of nonresident executors and administrators as litigants in the courts of Tennessee, and did not intend to interfere with rights which are granted by the federal Constitution and the acts of Congress. Doubtless the state Legislature could have denied to nonresidents the right or privilege to act as executors or administrators of the estates of deceased residents of the state (In re Mulford, 217 Ill. 242, 75 N.E. 345, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 341, and note, 108 Am.St.Rep. 249, 3 Ann.Cas. 986), but no attempt has been made so to do. On the contrary, the right of a nonresident to act as administrator of an estate in Tennessee is expressly recognized by this legislation. No attempt is made to convert an actual nonresident into a citizen of Tennessee, or to provide for the revocation of the letters of administration of a nonresident administrator in case he avails himself of his constitutional right to bring suit in the proper court of the United States.

In each of these cases the administrator is acting under permission and authority granted to him by the state and is a citizen of another state. No question is raised as to his right to administer on the decedent's estate. It is settled that the jurisdiction of the federal courts depends upon the personal citizenship of the parties to the record, and not upon the citizenship of the parties whom they represent. Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66, 20 L.Ed. 484; Amory v. Amory, 95 U.S. 186, 24 L.Ed. 428; Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U.S. 429, 23 Sup.Ct. 211, 47 L.Ed. 245; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237, 7 Sup.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 380; C.H. & D.R. Co. v. Thiebaud (C.C.A. 6) 114 F. 918, 922, 52 C.C.A. 538; Bishop v. B. & M.R.R. (C.C.) 117 F. 771.

It is also settled that the jurisdiction of a federal court arising from diversity of citizenship of the parties to the suit cannot be impaired or annulled by a state statute. Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U.S. 73, 77, 5 Sup.Ct. 377, 28 L.Ed. 927; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U.S. 485, 498, 3 Sup.Ct. 327, 27 L.Ed. 1006; Hyde v. Stone, 20 How. 170, 175, 15 L.Ed. 874; Harrison v. St. L. & San Francisco R.R., 232 U.S. 318, 34 Sup.Ct. 333, 58 L.Ed. 621, L.R.A. 1915F, 1187; Barrow Steamship Co. v. Kane, 170 U.S. 100, 111, 18 Sup.Ct. 526, 42 L.Ed. 964; Herndon v. C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 218 U.S. 135, 30 Sup.Ct. 633, 54 L.Ed. 970; Madisonville Traction Co. v. Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 253, 25 Sup.Ct. 251, 49 L.Ed. 462; Cable v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 191 U.S. 288, 306, 24 Sup.Ct. 74, 48 L.Ed. 188; Donald v. Philadelphia, etc., Co., 241 U.S. 329, 36 Sup.Ct. 563, 60 L.Ed. . . ., decided by the Supreme Court May 22, 1916.

Coming then, to the merits of the cases: The alleged errors in the trials all cluster about the question of whether, under the evidence in each case, the court would have been justified in directing a verdict for the plaintiff as to the negligence and consequent liability of the defendant. The question of the negligence of the conductor of this train at the time of the accident was submitted to the jury, but under instructions which required the jury to find that he was negligent if 'his view down the track was cut off or was so obscured by smoke and dust incident to the passage of the southbound Illinois Central Railroad Company train that he could not see the train' and if he did not delay 'signaling the street car...