Case Name: JOHN A. CASEY v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1927-03-25
Citations: 171 Minn. 34
Docket Number: No. 25,971
Parties: JOHN A. CASEY v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 171
Pages: 34–36

Head Matter:
JOHN A. CASEY v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
March 25, 1927.
No. 25,971.
John Casey and James J. Magner, for appellant.
B. TP. Scandrett and Frederic D. McCarthy, for respondent.
Reported in 213 N. W. 57.

Opinion:
Wilson, C. J.
Plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for a . new trial. He was a railway mail clerk between St. Paul and International Falls. His train was delayed between International Falls and Brainerd by a blizzard, and he claims the defendant negligently exposed him to cold, impairing his health, in not keeping the mail car heated. The answer consisted of a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence.
Plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence is that the defendant operates its train No. 11, which is a through train known as No. 11-33, between St. Paul and Brainerd; that at Brainerd the control of this train passes to the Minnesota & International Railway Company, which operates it to Grand Falls, from where to International Falls it is operated by the Big Fork & International Falls Railroad Company. When defendant's equipment is used north of Brainerd the Minnesota & International Railway Company pays rent for it, and when the latter's equipment is used south of Brainerd the defendant pays rent.
Because plaintiff's proofs failed to show defendant's responsibility for the operation of the train north of Brainerd, defendant was entitled to a directed verdict. This fatal deficiency in plaintiff's case renders it unnecessary for us to consider the other questions presented by the briefs. The trial court submitted the question to the jury, which found for defendant.
The record does show that the- defendant owns 70 per cent of the common stock of the Minnesota & International Railway Company, but this situation does not make the defendant responsible for the acts of the other corporation. State v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 133 Minn. 413, 158 N. W. 627; Mpls. C. & C. Assn. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 134 Minn. 169, 158 N. W. 817. The evidence is not sufficient to make the Minnesota & International Railway Company by means of stock ownership the agent of defendant, as suggested in Specht v. M. P. R. Co. 154 Minn. 314, 191 N. W. 905; State v. G. N. Ry. Co. 160 Minn. 515, 200 N. W. 834; Erickson v. M. & O. Power Co. 134 Minn. 209, 158 N. W. 979.
Affirmed.