El Paso & S. W. R. Co. v. Lovick
Decision Date | 06 March 1919 |
Docket Number | (No. 933.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Parties | EL PASO & S. W. R. CO. v. LOVICK. |
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; Ballard Coldwell, Judge.
Suit by Robert L. Lovick against the El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
W. M. Peticolas and Del W. Harrington, both of El Paso, for appellant.
A. L. Curtis, of Belton, Winbourn Pearce, of Temple, and Geo. E. Wallace, of El Paso, for appellee.
Statement of Case.
On April 9, 1918, appellee, Lovick, filed this suit in the district court of El Paso county, Tex., against appellant, to recover damages arising from personal injuries. The accident upon which the suit is based occurred at Bisbee, Ariz., on October 7, 1917. At the time of the accident, appellee was in the service of appellant as a switchman in the Bisbee yards. He based his suit upon alleged negligence of W. L. Van Winkle, a fellow switchman, in the manner of the latter boarding the switchboard of a switch engine. Appellee alleged that he was a citizen of Texas, but did not allege the county of his residence either at the time of the accident or at the date upon which the suit was filed.
Appellant filed a plea in abatement setting up the President's proclamation of December 26, 1917, by virtue of which possession had been taken and control of its system of transportation assumed by the government; also, pleading the various acts of Congress and orders of the Director General hereinafter mentioned; that the asserted cause of action arose in Cochise county, Ariz., and at the time of the accident Lovick resided in said county. It was also averred that to try the suit in El Paso county would prejudice the just interests of the government, in that it would be necessary to bring certain witnesses to El Paso county, namely, W. L. Van Winkle, W. G. Grace, switchmen, and R. M. Booker, engineer, all of whom were in appellant's service at and near Cochise county, Ariz., and engaged in hauling war materials, troops, munitions, and supplies. On October 3, 1918, the plea in abatement was overruled. The action of the court upon the plea is the first question presented for review.
Opinion.It will be noted that the suit was filed April 9, 1918, which was the date upon which General Order 18 was issued. Under the rule announced in Lapeyre v. United States, 17 Wall. 191, 21 L. Ed. 606, the order became effective from the first moment of that day and covers all transactions of that date to which it is applicable. See, also, United States v. Norton, 97 U. S. 164, 24 L. Ed. 907; Leidigh Carriage Co. v. Stengel, 95 Fed. 637, 37 C. C. A. 210.
By the act of Congress approved August 29, 1916 (chapter 418, 39 Stat. 645 [U. S. Comp. St. 1918, § 1974a]), the President, in time of war, was empowered, through the Secretary of War, to take possession and assume control of any system of transportation and to utilize same for certain purposes therein specified.
This country being at war, the President, by proclamation dated December 26, 1917 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, § 1974a), took possession and assumed control of each and every railroad transportation system within the boundaries of the continental United States. It directed that the possession, operation, and utilization of such systems should be exercised by and through Wm. G. McAdoo, who was thereby appointed and designated Director General of Railroads. This provision was contained in the proclamation:
"Except with the prior written assent of said Director, no attachment by mesne process or on execution shall be levied on or against any of the property used by any of said transportation systems in the conduct of their business as common carriers; but suits may be brought by and against said carriers and judgments rendered as hitherto until and except so far as said Director may, by general or special orders, otherwise determine."
The act of August 29, 1916, was supplemented by the act approved March 21, 1918 (chapter 25), the eighth, ninth, and tenth sections (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, §§ 3115¾h, 3115¾i, 3115¾j) whereof read:
By proclamation dated March 29, 1918 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, § 3115¾h) the President authorized the Director General:
"To issue any and all orders which may in any way be found necessary and expedient in connection with the federal control of systems of transportation, railroads, and inland waterways as fully in all respect as the President is authorized to do, and generally to do and perform all and singular all acts and things and to exercise all and singular the powers and duties which in and by the said act, or any other act in relation to the subject hereof, the President is authorized to do and perform."
On April 9, 1918, the Director General issued General Order No. 18, the material portion whereof reads:
On April 18, 1918, the Director General issued General Order No. 18a, which reads:
On May 23, 1918, the Director General issued General Order No. 26, the material portions of which read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Chicago & E. I. Ry. Co.
...of Hoctor's negligence was clearly one for the jury. Shaw v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 314 Mo. 123; Francis v. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. 658; Railroad Co. v. Lovick, 210 S.W. 283. Upon demurrer at the close of the case, the trial court is required to accept as true all evidence in the entire record tending t......
-
Johnson v. Chicago & Eastern Ill. Ry. Co.
...of Hoctor's negligence was clearly one for the jury. Shaw v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 314 Mo. 123; Francis v. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. 658; Railroad Co. v. Lovick, 210 S.W. 283. (b) Upon demurrer at the close of the case, the trial court is required to accept as true all evidence in the entire record tendi......
-
Davis v. Parks
... ... & P. Ry. Co. ([U. S.] D. C. Neb. Dec. 27, 1918) 254 F. 875; Haubert v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. ([U. S.] D. C. Ohio, Sept. 3, 1919) 259 F. 361; El Paso & S. W. R. Co. v. Lovick (Feb. 11, 1920) 110 Tex. 244, 218 S. W. 489, affirming (Tex. Civ. App. March 6, 1919) 210 S. W. 283, and overruling Rhodes ... ...
-
Davis v. Hara 10 13, 1924
... ... Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (D. C. Neb., Dec. 27, 1918) 254 F. 875; Haubert v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (D. C. Ohio, Sept. 3, 1919) 259 F. 361; El Paso & S. W. R. Co. v. Lovick (Feb. 11, 1920) 110 Tex. 244, 218 S. W. 489, affirming (Tex. Civ. App., March 6, 1919) 210 S. W. 283, and overruling Rhodes ... ...