Robinson v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1920
• Docket Number: 1325.
• Citation: 102 S.E. 532,150 Ga. 41
• Parties: ROBINSON v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. ET AL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

102 S.E. 532

150 Ga. 41

ROBINSON v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. ET AL.

No. 1325.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 25, 1920

Syllabus by the Court.

In virtue of the act of 1916 (Act Aug. 29, 1916, c. 418) and the proclamation of the President (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U.S Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 1974a), which by its terms went into effect at 12 o'clock on the 28th day of December 1917, the railroads contemplated in the act and proclamation passed into the possession and control of the Director General. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota ex rel Langer, 250 U.S. 135, 39 S.Ct. 502, 63 L.Ed. 897. Section 10 of the act of March 21, 1918 (U. S. Comp. St 1918, U.S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919. § 3115 3/4j), properly construed, recognizes liability of the government to suit, among other things, for injuries received on account of negligence of the agents and servants engaged in operating the railroad "while under federal control," which, as above ruled, became operative immediately upon the President's proclamation becoming effective, and was a declaration of the assent of the government to the institution of a suit of such character against it. Westbrook v. Director General of Railroads (D. C.) 263 F. 211.

Where an injury occurred between the dates of the President's proclamation and the act approved March 21, 1918, and a suit based thereon was instituted subsequently to the date of the act, but prior to the assent of General Order No. 50 promulgated by the Director General of Railroads, which in effect gave directions that suits for injuries resulting from operation of railroads while under federal control should be brought against the Director General, under proper construction of the act of 1916 and the proclamation of the President and the act of 1918, such suit (of the character involved in this case) was maintainable against the government without the aid of General Order No. 50 by the Director General of Railroads.

Where a suit of the character just indicated was instituted subsequently to the act of March 21, 1918, and the name of the defendant was alleged as the railroad company, and the petition and process were served upon the agents engaged in operating the railroad company, inasmuch as the railroad was being operated by the government, and the government would be suable for any injuries caused by its agents and servants, the suit was in effect against the government. Westbrook v. Director General (D. C.) 263 F. 211. Accordingly, the petition could be amended by substituting the Director General of Railroads in his representative capacity as defendant in lieu of the railroad company.

Certified Questions from Court of Appeals.

Action by J. I. Robinson against the Central of Georgia Railway Company and others. On questions certified from the Court of Appeals. Questions answered.

Hill & Adams, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Colquitt & Conyers and Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

ATKINSON J.

The Court of Appeals has propounded certain questions:

"The Court of Appeals desires instructions from the Supreme Court upon the following questions involved in this case:

(a) Did a plaintiff have a right of action for the recovery of damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained on account of the negligent operation of the cars and trains of a railroad company, which, on the date of the alleged injury, had been taken over and was being operated under federal control, by virtue of the proclamation of the President of the United States, dated December 26, 1917 pursuant to the act of Congress approved August 29, 1916, the petition showing on its face that the alleged injury was sustained on the 18th day of March, 1918, same being subsequent to the proclamation of the President referred to, but prior to the passage of the act of Congress approved March 21, 1918, entitled 'An act to provide for the operation of transportation system under federal control,' etc.?

(b) Would the fact that the suit in this case was instituted

...