Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-05-09
DECISIONS OF
SUPREME COURT
From ward County. &c

Vv0&Us ss,At "a a.. 49,
1ohn A. McGfeEor, as admtM3strato
:. 'G the estate 81 Christ Hansonl,I de-
VI CEASED. plaintiff and appellAat, vs.
Graot Northern Railway company.
CORPORATION, defendant a~nd~feSpono-
ent. ., ~ ,.5 ~
~ an action by an administrator;
brought under the federal emPioyoIs
liability act to recover. damages oScr
stoned by the death2Ssf the
in%testate through ALLEGED negllsence
Of the defendant railway
where the cause of action arose ana
tha action was begun subsequent to
the assumption of federal control n
hafore the passage OF the ~ratlscontroi
oct ~ March u. 19lS.s1t is held:
NnI Under the act OF congress OF
Aur,ist 20, 1916, authortxtnHssthe as.
sumption, in time Of
by the president of systems p1.tfans
portation, and under the pr9cianla-
ton Of the president issuedf ans pur-
suance thereof, prima facie q oeuse
of action for the alleged negligence
arose and became vested IN thasplatn.
tiff prior to- the passage OF the rail-
control act. y .ds
m1irated by, the director general OF
railroads, which requires that suits
upon causes of action arising. suDse-
ouent to December 81. 1917: a be
brought against h director genera!
Of railroads and not otherwise and
which authorizes the substitution ,Nf
the director general for the carrier
company as party defendant, md the
dismissal Of the action as to thereon
pany. is not warranted by the rail-
control act OF March Fl. 1919, In SO
far as it purports to be. applicable to
causes of action already vested,
as Section 10 Of the raffscontrol
act is construed and held to authorize
the bringing Of actions against the
carrier corporations during
of federal, CONTROL ...a,-s SsssS -.
"a Under the rail control, act, tn
director general is charged with ad-
ministering the transportation sys-
tens owned by the various carrier
corporations, but he is not authorized
to appear, and defend. suits brought
against them. E7S .%s Z.
(5). The carrier corporations dur
ing the period Of federal: control, re-
main legal entities capable Of suing
and being sued in the scourtsshnd are
champions of their, own ~leEalaHghts.
CO. The liability or non-liability
of a carrier corporation for @89ets Of
alleged negligence occurring dur9ng
(athe period of federal control, is no
an administrative question to.t1e de-
cided by the director general,*abut Is
a judicial question to be determined
by the courts. 'sths
(D The question as to whether
OF not a carrier corporation may be
ploye during the period of federal
control is not decided. sE7s5s
Appeal from the district court Of
Ward county, Leighton. j. ~
Order reversed. a, jt 2 e.
Opinion Of the court by Birdzell, J.;
Robinson, j. concurs IN result and
syllabus. Bronson and Garce, IT,.
r. R. sinkler & NJ. o. Elder, attor-
Murphy & Toner. Grand Forks. and
Bradford & Nash. Minot, for respond
~e'. cog >@s
From Ward County,
A. Simmer and L. J.. Thomas, plain
tiffs. and respondents. VS.. Harry II.
Martin. administrator OF the estate Of
William H.. States. deceased: Julia A.
States. widow of the said deceased;
Mollie A.: Fouch: Lewis =. States. AT
thur ]. States. Frank H. States, Eta
G. Sears, Elmer e. States and Harry
w. States. a minor. and, G.. w. States,
guardian Of the said Harry w. States.
defendants. and appellants. 20: ~
SYLLABUS: -S:.
The remedy Of specific performance
must be promptly sought. and where
there is al Unexplained .dSlay OF APP
proximately fiyas2yeakS iVsbrtnxtng the
actlon. g asfuIthers deaay s,ot approx-
Judgment, the land in the meantime
beingsin% the Of third par
ties. specific performance will mot he,
decreed. ,ht
Appeal from district court Of. Ward
county, Leighton. J..
Reversed. II
Opinion Of the court by Bird1ell, j.;
Robinson, j.. concurs. specially.
George P. Homnes, and Brace &
Stuart. all of Crosby. attorneys for de-
enuan.s n appellants.
AID u Aaker. and Greenleaf,
Wooledge & Lesk of Minot, attorneys
Tor and respondents:s
..p - r'ifs
From Trail County.
Trail county. North Dakota re-
spondent, VS.. State Of North Dakota.
appellant. - 4
Syllabus: y "t
sustain a Judgment
Appeal from the district court Of
Trail county, Hon. At. Cole, Nudge.
i Reversed and remanded.
Opinion of. the court by Robinson.
j.; Bronson, j., being disoualifiad. did
not participate. ST;
William LANCER. attorney general;
George e. Foster. assistant attorney
general. Bismarck. attorneys for ap-
pe1iant.
w.
non, From William. County, !,