The Cordova daily times. [volume] (Cordova, Alaska) 1914-1947, 1919-07-14
JUDGE BROWN
SUSTAINED BY
HIGHER COURT

The circuit court of appeals at San
Francisco last week handed down an
opinion affirming the decision of
Judge F. M. Brown in the case of Frank
L. Ballaine against the Alaska North
ern Railway Company.
This was case commenced over
three years ago, in which Mr.. Ballaine
brought an action for $3.50 900 damages
against the Alaska Northern Railway
Company for an alleged malicious
prosecution by which Ballaine claimed
that he was damaged because he could
not sell or otherwise dispose of lots
and property in Seward, because the
trustees of the Alaska Northern Rail
way Company had brought a suit
against John E. and Frank l.. Ballaine.
claiming that they held the townsite
Of Seward in trust for the stockhoId-
ers of the Alaska Northern Railway
Company
John Ballaine also brought an ac-
ton against the Alaska Northern Rail
way Company on the same ground,
alleging that he was damaged in the
sum of 100000, but after a decision
was rendered by the district court he
failed to perfect an appeal and let his
case lapse.
In these cases the United States.
by the United States district attorney,
filed complaint in intervention, al
leging that the United States had
bought all the property, stocks, bonds
and assets of the Alaska Northern
Railway Company, and that the United
States was a bona fide purchaser of
the same and had paid a reasonable
value for the same, and that the Unit
ed States was the owner and in pos
session of all of the property of the
Alaska Northern Railway Company
and that the United States never had
any interest in the former suit upon
which these cases were based.
Under such ownership the United
States attorney contended that as Bal
LANES action was one in tort, that is,
for an alleged wrong committed there
was no law by which the United States
could be sued in that character of &C
ton, and that the United States was
acting in its sovereign capacity in the
construction of the railroad now under
course of construction.
The contention of Ballaine was that
the United States had no right to in
terVene, that it was a mere stock
holder of the Alaska Northern Rail
way Company, and that in the con-
struction and operation of the Alaska
character and could be sued the same
as any other corporation.
L. V. Ray appeared for Ballaine and
United States Attorney Munly con-
Quoted the case for the United States.
The case was very warmly contested,
and after deliberate consideration the
! contentious of the United States at
torney were upheld by Judge Brown,
and the same have now been affirmed
by the circuit court of appeals.
The case is one of considerable i'm
pOrtance, involving some points Of
law that have been under discussion
since the very foundation of the gov
eminent. One of the cases cited in the
brief was presented to the supreme
court of the United States by Daniel
Webster and Henry Clay, and there
have been many cases in the supreme
court of the United States, some of
which could not be easily reconciled
with others. The court of appeals evil
IDENTIFY was of the opinion that the best
considered cases were on the side of
the United States in this litigation,
as was contended by United States
Attorney Munly, and has decided &C
cordingly.