The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-11-08
THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Opinion I'm the Damage Suit of Ade-
laide NJ, MerrIman,

The Court of Appeals of the District
yesterday. in disposing of the suit of
Adelaide NJ. Merriman, Administrative of
the estate of John A. Merriman. deceased,
against John X. Cowen and Oscar C. MUIR
ray, receivers of the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad, defined the liabilities of receiv-
ers even after their terms Of office have
expired. Mrs. Merriman filed suit against
the receivers Of the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad to recover $4,000 claimed as
damages on account of the death OF her
husband. who was killed on the night of
December 3, 1896, at the railroad crossing
at Florida Avenue. When the case came
On for trial the defendants contended that
they were not liable because their terms
of receivership had expired. The plaintiff
was represented by Henry E. Davis and
c. C. Tucker and the jury which heard
the testimony awarded Mrs. Merriman
IS, 500 damages Mr.. Justice Morris. who
announced the opinion of the court, said:
ut is contended by the defe ndants that
the order of the Court Of Equity of June
30. 1899. withdrew the property of the
railroad company from their possession
and control, and had the effect of dis
charging the receivers from any further
liability for the. claim sued for in Ibis
action, and that the only recourse of the
plaintiff is by application to the Court of
Equity having control of the cause in
which the receivers were appointed for
an adjudication of the claim. We do rot,
however. entertain this view of the case.
The court below had acquired complete
jurisdiction of the subject matter of the
suit before the order of June 30, 1899.
"TGe action was authorized to lie
brought without the authority of the court
appointing the receiver and the fair and
reasonable Interpretation of the act of
Congress is that the remedy against the
receivers was not only to be protected
but promoted, and made effectual by that
act. The property OF the railroad COM
pany. therefore. remained subject to the
control and jurisdiction of the Court of
Equity that appointed the receivers. The
judgment Is not recorded against the re-
ceivers personally. but against them in
their official capacity as receivers. and the
judgment is payable only from the funds
in their hands, or that may remain sub
ject to the jurisdiction and direction OF
the court that appointed them
There was irregu!arty in entering the
judgment. but that was in mere matter
of form. the judgment instead of being
entered against the receivers personally. |
as appears to have been done. should havc
been entered against them in their official
capacity"
In the case of Joseph E. Sardo against |
Walter NJ. Moreland and Frederick L. |
Greenwald. the judgment of the lower |
court was affirmed This WAS a suit for |
damages. brought by Sardo to recover |
sl5, 900 from the defendants for alleged |
personal injuries. Messrs. Moreland and |
Greenwald conduct a game and poultry |
business in the Centre Market and the |
plaintiff, Sardo. while engaged in hosting |
a dead deer. was injured by the carcass
falling upon him. When the case came up |
in the circuit branch of the Supreme Court |
of the District, after hearing Sardo's tes-
timony, the presiding justice ordered n
verdict for the defendant. From this
judgment Sardo appealed.
In the case of William B. Gurley and
Richard A. Johnson, appellants, against
william F. MacLennan. the judgment of
the lower court was reversed and the
cause remanded for a new trial.