Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 May 1919
• Docket Number: 1116,1108.
• Citation: 257 F. 138
• Parties: SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. WADE v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

257 F. 138

SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

WADE v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO.

Nos. 1116, 1108.

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Eastern Division.

May 2, 1919

Geo. W Owens, of Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff Southern Cotton Oil Co.

Oliver & Oliver, of Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff Wade.

Osborne Lawrence & Abrahams, of Savannah, Ga., for defendant Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Anderson Cann, Cann & Walsh, of Savannah, Ga., for defendant Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.

BEVERLY D. EVANS, District Judge.

These cases were heard on the same day, and, as the point for present decision is identical, they will be considered together. That point arises on a traverse of the entry of service, wherein service on the defendant corporation is stated as having been made by serving a designated individual as an agent of the defendant corporation. I find as a conclusion of fact, based on an agreement in the first case and upon a consideration of the evidence submitted in the other, that the cause of action in each case originated prior to the Act for Federal Control of Railroads (Act March 21 1918, c. 25, 40 Stat. 451 (Comp. St. 1918, Secs. 3115 3/4a to 3115 3/4p)), and each suit was brought after the passage of that act and the taking over of the railroads thereunder by presidential proclamation, and service was had on an agent in the employment of the government of the United States at the time of the service. The legal question presented is whether service on the agent of the government, engaged in the operation of the railroad of the carrier, under the facts stated above, constitutes service on the defendants, because of their former employment by them.

Under the presidential proclamation of December 26, 1917, the possession, control, and operation of the railroads shall be exercised by and through William G. McAdoo as Director General. When the Director General assumed control, the acts of the former officers and employes, who retained their positions and conducted the details of operation of the railroads, were the acts of the Director General. Rutherford v. Union Pac. R. Co. (D.C.) 254 F. 880. Their employment by the Director General made them exclusively the servants or agents of the employer. There could be no divided allegiance as agents of the railroad corporation and of the Director General, so as to accomplish the purpose of Congress. The acts of Congress, the proclamation of...