Citation Numbers: 83 Pa. Super. 472
Judges: OPINION BY LINN, J., July 2, 1924:
Filed Date: 4/29/1924
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Argued April 29, 1924, After federal control of the railroads terminated, "James C. Davis, Director General of Railroads, Agent, operating, inter alia, the Pennsylvania Railroad," was summoned as defendant in assumpsit. Plaintiff declared for breach of contract to transport a car of tomatoes, pursuant to a bill of lading issued on February 24, 1920, at Homestead, Florida, by the Director General of Railroads operating the Florida East Coast Railway, for transportation to South Jacksonville, Florida, whence the shipment was diverted to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where it was tendered in bad order, as is alleged, the result of negligent transportation. Defendant denied liability. There was a verdict for plaintiff, followed by a motion under the Act of 1905 for judgment for defendant n.o.v.; it was refused and is here for review.
The following quotation from the opinion of the court below sufficiently states the facts: "The car was en route through Florida on February 26th and 27th...... Under the Act of Congress, federal control ceased March 1st, at 12: 01 A.M. The car was transferred to the lines of the Pennsylvania Railroad at 12 o'clock noon, March 3d, ...... There was convincing evidence as to the low temperature in and about Pittsburgh on the night of March 5th and the morning of March 6th, and of the fact that the ventilators were partially open when the car was inspected by consignee on the morning of the latter date, and, consequently, it is clear that the freezing occurred on the line of the Pennsylvania Railroad before consignee was informed of the car's arrival."
The agent defended on the ground that, as operating the Pennsylvania railroad system, the director general had had nothing to do with the shipment, as it had reached that line after federal control ceased. On the *Page 475 other hand, plaintiff contended, and the court below agreed, that as the contract was made by a director general of railroads who was "one corporate entity," the defendant though summoned as operating the Pennsylvania railroad system, was responsible, it being immaterial that the contract was made by the director general of railroads operating a Florida railroad.
Two points are clear. First, as the director general of railroads was not operating the Pennsylvania system during the time the car moved over its lines, federal control having ceased before, recovery cannot be had against defendant, for anything occurring while he was not so operating: Sec. 200 Trans. Act, 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 459; DuPont de Nemours Co. v. Davis,
As the director general operating the Pennsylvania Railroad for whose acts the defendant was summoned, had nothing to do with the operation of the Pennsylvania Railroad system after the termination of federal control (when the alleged damage occurred), and as, in his capacity as the operator of the Pennsylvania system at the date of the bill of lading, he could not be held for the director general's alleged breach of contract as the operator of the Florida East Coast Railway, the motion for judgment should have been granted.
The judgment is reversed and here entered for defendant.