The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1919-05-02
RAlLWAYSD0NOT
LOSE ABILITY TO
SUE AND Be SUED
North Dakota Supreme Court
Hands Down Important Opin-
ion on Federal Control
MUST PADDLE OWN CANOES
Cannot Shift Legal Responsible
ties Onto Shoulders of Ma
tiOnal Administrator
MUST PADDLE OWN CANOES

.-.---. -ts.r
Carrier corporations during the Pc
riod of federal control remain legal
entities, capable of suing and of being
sued in the courts and they are the
champions of their own legal rights.
holds the North Dakota supreme court
in one Of the most important decisions
that has been handed down by any
state court affecting the status of rail-
ways under federal control... The North
Dakota court is the tirst, so far as can
be learned, to hold that railways cam
not shift their legal responsibilities,
underSnational control, onto the shoul-
ders Of the federal railway admins
tration. Courts Of several other states
have held to the contrary.
ACTION AGAINST G. n.
The question was presented to the
North Dakota supreme court In IN
appeal taken by John A. McGregor, as
administrator of the estate Of Christ
Hanson of MinOt, from an order Of
Judge Leighton in the county district
court, dismissing an aQtion brought by
McGregor against the Great Northern
Ito recover damases Cor the death Of
Hanson. land substituting as the de-
fendant in mis- proceeding William G.
McAdOO as direcor general Of the q. s..
railways.
Hanson was killed while in the en-
pl0y of the Great Northern at Minot
on January %, 1918. after federal con
troll Of railways was made operative.
Through attorneys II. r. Sinkler and
NJ. O. Elder, McGregor. as administra-
tor, brought action under the federal
employers liability act against the
Great Northern to recover damages for
the alleged negligence Of the railway
company. The federal railway admin:
istratiOn intervened through Murphy
&fTOner of Grand Forks and Bradford
III Nash Of Minot, contendlng that the
Great Northern could not be sued as I
separate entity while under federal
! control and praying that the fedora |
railway administration be substituted
as the defendant. Judge Leighton up
held this: contention.
si: 53ss COURTS HOLDING
s,sy In reversing judge Leighton, the sn-
Tsfeme court h0l% NAgt under the act
" 0f congress yets. %. sLulAQ. 1916, author
.ising the 4R9llegg' ae Of war OF
control by the president 6f Systems of
Transportation and under the prOcla.
5mAttOt, OF the president issued In pur-
suance thereof, prima faeie a cause OF
action for the alleged negligence arose
and became vested in the plaiiitiffs prior
to the passage of the rail control act.
General order No. 10, the court holds,
promulgated by the director general OF
railroads, which requires tllhtgslllts up
on causes of action arising subsequent
to December 81, 1917, shall be brought
against the director general of rail-
roads and not otherwise and which
authorizes the substitution Of the d.
rector general for thu carrier company
as party defendant and the dismissal
Of the action as to the company. is not
warranted by the rail control act OF
March q, 1918, insofar as it purposes
to be applicable to causes of action al
ready vested. = .-
Section 10 of the rail control act is
construed and held to authorize the
bringing Of actions against the carrier
corporations during the period OF fed
cral control Under the rail control
act. the director general is charged
with administering, the transportation
systems owned :byathe various. carrier
corporations, but be isenot authorized
TO appear and defend 7suits brought
against them. -.
THE CARRIER CORPORATIONS,
DURING THE PERIOD OF FEEDER
AT CONTROL, REMAIN LEGAL
ENTITIES CAPABLE OF SUING
AND OF BEING SUED IN THE
COURTS AND ARE CHAMPIONS OF
THEIR OWN LEGAL RIGHTS.
The liability or n0n-liability of !
carrier corporation for acts OF al
legged negligence occurring during the
neriod of federal control is not All ad-
ministrative question to be decided by
the director general. but is IL judicial
question to be determined by the
courts. ~
The question as to whether or not
carrier corporation may be liable
for the negligence of an employe dur
ing the period Of federal control is
not decided The. case is returned to
the Ward county court for trial on
IFS merits, ,.a .,