NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
LEE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF LEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When an employee was killed on a railroad line operated by the federal government's Director General during World War I, the employee's administratrix sued the railroad lessor under North Carolina law, which made lessors liable for lessees' negligence. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the Federal Control Act made the Director General alone liable for injuries occurring during federal operation, precluding suits against either the lessee or lessor railroad companies.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Southern Railway includes a line in North Carolina which is held under a. ninety-nine year lease. On that line an employee was killed in March, 1919 — apparently while engaged in intrastate commerce. His admin-istratrix brought, in a court of the State, this action for damages, alleging that the line was then being operated by the Southern as lessee, and that the lessee’s negligence in operation caused the injury. Only the lessor, the North Carolina Railroad Company, was made defendant. Its liability was asserted under a local rule by which a railroad corporation is liable for injuries resulting from a lessee’s negligence in operation.' Logan v. North Carolina R. R. Co., 116 N. Car.
940. The defendant set up the fact that, at the time of the' accident, the Southern system was being operated solely by the Director General of Railroads under the Federal Control Act, March 21, 1918, c. 25, 40 Stat.
451. On that ground it requested a ruling that the plaintiff could not recover. This request was refused; and the court instructed the jury that, if the Government was operating, the railroad, it was doing so in the capacity of a lessee and that the defendant “ would still be responsible for the acts and conduct of the Government at the time it was operating ” the same. The verdict was for the plaintiff; and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina without opinion. This Court granted a writ of certiorari. 255 U. S.
567. Thereafter, the liability of carriers during federal control was considered in Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554.
•The Government operated this railroad not as lessee, but under a right in the nature of eminent domain. ,It operated through the Director General, not through the Southern Company as agent. The Ault Case holds that the Director General alone was made subject, by § 10 of the Federal Control Act, to the “liabilities as common carriers, whether arising under Staté or Federal laws or at common law.” To permit an action for injuries suffered during federal control to be brought either against the Southern Company as lessee, or against the North Carolina Company as lessor, would be inconsistent with the provisions of that act. This is now recognized by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Lane v. Southern Ry. Co., 182 N. Car. 774; Barbee v. North Carolina R. R. Co., 182 N. Car. 775.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1924)…e United States,” § 12. [*462] In taking over and operating the railroad systems of the country the United States did so in its sovereign capacity, as a war measure, “ under a right in the nature of eminent domain,” North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Lee, 260 U. S. 16; Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135; In re Tidewater Coal Exchange, 280 Fed. 648, 649; and it may not be held to have waived any sovereign right or privilege unless plainly so…
-
N.C. R.R. Co. v. Story, 268 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1925)…may be conceded that the first judgment against the Company in favor of the administrator, however erroneous it was in view of the cases of Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, and North Carolina Railroad Company v. Lee, Administrator, 260 U. S. 16, not having been appealed from was res judicata. Nor could § 206 (g) prevent the second judgment.- It was ¿not directed aeainst judgments. It was intended to protect [*293] the property of the Company not by preventing a judgment but by preventing a…
-
Virginian Ry. Co. v. Mullens, 271 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1926)…should be brought was cleared away by General Order No. 50, which required that it be against the Director General by name.” In Wabash Ry. Co. v. Elliott, 261 U. S. 457, 462, the decision was to the same effect. In North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Lee, 260 U. S. 16, it was held that the Government operated the railroads during federal control “ not as lessee, but under a right in the nature of eminent domain ”; and in Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264. U. S. 456, 462, it was added that “ In taking over an…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Ault, 256 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1921)