Overstreet v. Southern Railway Company, 23299.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 23299.,23299. |
| Citation | 371 F.2d 411 |
| Parties | Roy OVERSTREET, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
W. S. Murphy, Lucedale, Miss., for appellant.
M. M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, Miss., for appellee.
Before GEWIN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.
In this diversity suit for damages, plaintiff Overstreet was involved in a railroad crossing accident on February 3, 1959, at Hattiesburg, Forrest County, Mississippi, with a locomotive operated by the New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Company. The complaint was not filed until February 1, 1965, after which the district judge granted a motion for summary judgment dismissing the suit, the court holding that the uncontradicted affidavits submitted by defendant Southern Railway Company showed that it did not operate a train or conduct any railroad operations at Hattiesburg, but that another corporation, New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Company, did operate such a train on the date and at the place plaintiff alleges he was injured.
Thereafter, plaintiff moved to set aside and vacate the summary judgment and attached to his motion certain exhibits consisting of copies of reports filed with the Mississippi Public Service Commission by Southern Railway Company and New Orleans & Northeast ern Railroad Company. In detailed reasons for judgment, the trial court overruled plaintiff's motion to set aside and vacate the summary judgment. The district judge pointed out that defendant Southern Railway Company had no railroad tracks in Forrest County, Mississippi, nor did it own or operate the locomotive or train; that the locomotive was owned by Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company and leased to New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Company, though the word "Southern" was painted on it. The district judge held that the defendant Southern Railway Company had absolutely nothing to do with the accident. The reports filed with the Mississippi Public Service Commission showed that defendant Southern Railway Company owned 100 per cent of the stock of New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Company; also, that New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Company had ten directors and Southern Railway Company twelve directors, only two of whom were also directors for New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Company. However, the two corporations are separate and distinct entities, and there was no evidence that Southern was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co.
...the law, to establish agency. See e. g., Matter of Bowen Transports, Inc., 551 F.2d 171, 178-9 (7th Cir. 1977); Overstreet v. Southern Ry. Co., 371 F.2d 411, 412 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 912, 87 S.Ct. 1700, 18 L.Ed.2d 634 (1968); In Re Penn Central Securities Litigation, 335 ......
-
Fredrickson v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & S., INC., 73 C 216.
...1261 (S.D. N.Y.1973), affirmed 498 F.2d 1303 (2nd Cir. 1974); Kaplan v. Lehman Brothers, 250 F.Supp. 562 (N.D.Ill.1966), affirmed 371 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1967). It also seems clear that the SEC has the power to consider antitrust matters when reviewing exchange self-regulatory rules and poli......
-
Thill Securities Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange
... ... against the pricing practices under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Aff'd 409 F.2d 872 (7th Cir. 1969). The ... ...
-
Sheet Metal Wkrs. Int. Ass'n, Loc. 223 v. Atlas Sheet Metal Co.
...but the parties have totally failed to present the case to this Court in an orderly, clear and concise manner. 3 Overstreet v. Southern Ry. Co., 371 F.2d 411 (5 Cir. 1967), although not concerned with a secondary boycott suit, indicates that even though one corporation owns the entire stock......