Case Name: BYRD & PARKER v. JAMES C. DAVIS, Agent, and the ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1924-09-10
Citations: 188 N.C. 150
Docket Number: 
Parties: BYRD & PARKER v. JAMES C. DAVIS, Agent, and the ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 188
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
BYRD & PARKER v. JAMES C. DAVIS, Agent, and the ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Filed 10 September, 1924.)
1. Courts — Jurisdiction — Federal Government — Director General of Railroads — War.
Tbe United States Government is bound by tbe appearance of tbe Director General of Railroads, submitting to tbe jurisdiction of tbe State court in an action against a railroad company under government control, only to tbe extent of bis authority as authorized by tbe general Federal statute on tbe subject.
2. Courts — Federal Government — Decisions—State Courts.
Tbe decision of tbe Supreme Court of the United States is controlling in tbe State court, upon Federal questions involving the liability of tbe United States Government in matters relating to tbe liability of carriers under tbe control of tbe Federal Government as a war measure.
PetitioN by defendant, Director General of Railroads, to rebear tbis case, reported in 181 N. C., 515.
Rountree & Carr; Stevens, Beasley & Stevens for defendant, petitioner.
George R. Ward and H. B. Williams for plaintiffs, respondents.

Opinion:
Stagy, J.
Tbis case was originally decided by us on 16 April, 1924. Since that time the Supreme Court of the United States bas rendered a contrary decision in a case essentially similar to the one at bar, and wbicb we consider a controlling authority on the question bere presented. Davis v. Donovan, 44 Sup. Ct., 513 (decided 26 May, 1924), approving Manbar Coal Co. v. Davis, Agent (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 10 March, 1924), 297 Fed., 24, where the question is discussed in a learned opinion by Rose, Circuit Judge.
On tbe trial tbe following issue was submitted to tbe jury and answered by them in tbe negative: "Were the three mules, or any of them described in tbe complaint, delivered to tbe Director General of Railroads, operating tbe Atlantic Coast Line Railroad?"
Tbe mooted question presented by tbe pleadings and tbe verdict is whether tbe defendant, as Director General of all tbe railroads over wbicb tbe shipment was routed, submitted himself to tbe jurisdiction of tbe court in bis capacity as Director General of tbe initial and connecting carriers, as well as of tbe delivering carrier. Tbe plaintiffs were entitled, as a matter of right, to proceed against tbe defendant only in bis capacity as Director General of tbe Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. As this was the only capacity in which the United States consented to be sued in an action like the present, the defendant's answer should be construed in conformity with the statute and orders under which such consent was given, and not otherwise. St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 253 S. W., 248.
No liability having been established against the defendant in the capacity in which he was served, or in which he answered, it follows that our former decision granting a new trial must be reversed, and the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the action as originally rendered will be affirmed.
Petition allowed.