Case Name: MASSEY v. HINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-08-01
Citations: 117 S.C. 1
Docket Number: 10680
Parties: MASSEY v. HINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 1–4

Head Matter:
10680.
MASSEY v. HINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL.
(108 S. E. 181)
1. Railroads—Federal Director General Not Liable in Punitive Damages for Willful Tort of Agents.'—-The Federal Director General of Railroads in control of a railroad is not liable in punitive, damages for the willful tort of his agents and servants.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
2. Appeal and Error—Appeal Being From Portion of Verdict Allowing Punitive Damages, Judgment Should Have Been Modification of Trial Court’s Judgment to Such Extent.— Where defendant Federal Director General of Railroads appealed only from such portion of verdict against him as allowed punitive damages for the willful tort of his agents and servants, the judgment of the Supreme Court should have been a modification to such extent of the judgment of the trial Court, both for actual and punitive damages, and not an order for new trial nisi.
Before Townsend, J., York, April, 1920.
Modified.
Action by Jessie H. Massey against Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads. Verdict for Plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Messrs. Glenn & Glenn and Thos. F. McDow, for appellant,
cite: Governmental control of railroads: 112 S. C., 407; 113 S. C., 236; 113 S. C., 179. Punitive damages: 65 S. C., 39. Suits against Director General are suits against Government: 263 Fed., 211; 259 Fed., 261; 3 Wheat., 546. Suit will not lie for willfulness: 114 S. C., 331; 103 S. C., 545; 114 S. C., 236; 103 S. E„ 548. In reply: Growth of punitive damage idea: 3 Wils., 18; 2 Bay, 417; 14 E. E'd., (U. S.) 362; 55 So., 42; 34 E. R. A., (N. S.), 740; 76 S. C., 109; 11 Rich. R. 283; 11 Rich. E. 469; 13 S. C., 546; 76 S. C., 193; 103 S. E., 545.
Messrs. Samuel B. McFadden and John R. Hart, for respondent. Mr. Hart
cites: Government control of railroads: 40 Stat, 456; U. S. Comp. 1918, Sec. 3115^-J. Punitive .damages neither fine nor penalty : 35 S. C., 486; 34 S. C., 324; 60 S. C., 73; 69 S. C., 160; 8 R. C. E., 132, note 7; 69 S. C., 115; 76 S. C„ 283; 13 How., 371; 129 U. S., 26; 127 U. S., 205; 116 U. S., 562; 91 U. S., 492; 13 A. & E. Ene. R., 53; 188 Fed., 735; 94 S. W., 962; 163 Fed., 129; 97 S. W., 724; 11 Ga. App., 564; 92 S. W., 191; 21 R. C. R., 3. Congress cannot delegate legislative power to President or Director General: 220 U. 'S., 519; 143. U. S., 649; 95 U. S., 587; 115 C. C. A., 469; 10 R. R. A., (N. S.), 254. No person was to be deprived of an existing legal right of action: 253 Fed., 459. Judicial question not for Director General to decide: 172 N. W., 841.
Mr. McFadden
cites: Punitive damages: 3 S. C., 583 25 S. C., 222; 28 S. C., 405; 29 S. C., 386; 33 S. C.,-435; 65 S. C., 39; 60 S. C., 73. Distinction between fines, penalties and forfeitures: 18 Ann. Cas., 883; -15 Rich. R., •17; 6 Words & Ph., 5273; 40 S. C., 165. Supreme Court of U. S. follows State Courts in construction and interpretation of common and statute law: 2 Foster Fed. Prac. (4th Ed.), Sec. 375, p. 1294; 107 U. S., 20.
August 1, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the'Court was-delivered'by
Mr. Justice Cothran.
The sole question in this case is whether or not the Director General of Railroads while in federal control of 'a railroad is liable, in punitive damages for the willful tort of his agents and servants.
The question is answered in the negative by the decision of this Court in Rowell v. Hines, 114 S. C. 339; 103 S. E. 545; Ginn v. Hines, 114 S. C. 236; 103 S. E., 548, and by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Missouri, etc., Railroad Co. v. Ault, decided June 1, 1921, 254 U. S.-; 41 Sup. Ct., 593; 65 E. Ed.,-, where it is declared:
"The purpose for which the government permitted itself to be sued Was compensation, not punishment."
The judgment of this Court is that so much of the judgment of the Circuit Court as is for $8,000 actual damages, be affirmed, and that so much of the judgment as is for $12,000 punitive damages be reversed.