Vann v. Southern Railway Co., 180 N.C. 659 (1920)

Oct. 13, 1920 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

180 N.C. 659

ELLA R. VANN v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 13 October, 1920.)

Parties — Railroads—Government Control — Director General of Railroads.

Under the Federal Control Act tbe Director General of Railroads, is, in effect, a receiver, and an action will therefore lie against him, as such, for damages for the actionable negligence of an employee of a railroad under Government control and the railroad company is also properly joined as a party defendant.

Appeal by defendant from Daniels, J., at May Term, 1920, of Wake.

Tbis was an action by R. T. Yann and wife, Ella R. Yann, against tbe Southern Railroad and Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, and tbe Southern Express Company, for personal injuries sustained by Ella R. Yann by tbe alleged negligence of tbe defendants, caused by tbe falling of a tongue of a truck operated at tbe union station in Raleigh in March, 1918. Tbe husband of tbe plaintiff, R. T. Yann, entered a nonsuit, and tbe court directed a nonsuit as to tbe express company. Yerdict for plaintiff; appeal by tbe defendants.

J ones & Bailey and B. B. Simms for plaintiff.

William B. Snow for defendants.

Pee OueiaM.

There were divers exceptions assigned as error, but tbey were all abandoned in tbis Court, save exception 4, tbat tbe court overruled tbe motion of tbe Southern Railroad Company to dismiss tbe action as to it “upon tbe ground and because of its nonliability by reason of Federal control,” which motion .was in writing, and is set out in tbe record.

It is not necessary to discuss tbis point, as it was fully considered and decided in Clements v. R. R., 179 N. C., 225, as to tbe same defendant in which we affirmed tbe decision in Hill v. Director General, 178 N. C., 609, tbat tbe Director General was in effect a receiver, and therefore tbe action will lie against him under tbe act’ of Congress, and tbat tbe defendant, tbe Southern Railroad Company, was properly joined as a ‘codefendant under tbe rulings in Logan v. R. R., 116 N. C., 940; Harden v. R. R., 129 N. C., 354, and tbe uniform decisions of tbis Court since.

Tbe decision in Clements v. R. R., supra, and other cases cited above, and tbe reasons tberefor, were reviewed and reaffirmed in Gilliam v. R. R., 179 N. C., 508.

Upon tbe authority of tbe above cases, and for tbe reasons therein given, we find in tbis appeal

No error.