Charlton v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
*342 SOMERVILLE, J.
[1]
In the case of Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. et al. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554 , 41 Sup. Ct. 593, 65 L. Ed. -, recently decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (June 1, 1921), that court has decided that railroad corporations cannot be sued or held liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of the railroad administrator in the operation of their several transportation systems during the period of governmental control. That decision rests upon the proposition that the authority given by section 10 of the Federal Control Act (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115%j) to bring actions at law or suits in equity against “carriers” while under federal control cannot be construed as authorizing suits against the several railroad corporations, who had nothing to do with the operation of their lines, but must be construed as authorizing suits against the government or its agency, as the only responsible operator of the several transportation systems. The conclusion is thus stated by Mr. Justice Brandéis, speaking for the court :
“As the Federal Control Act did not impose any liability upon the companies on any cause of action arising out of the operation of their systems of transportation by the government, the provision in Order No. 50 authorizing the substitution of the Director General as defendant in suits then pending within his power, the application of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company that it be dismissed from this action should have been granted; and the judgment against it should therefore be reversed.”
[2, 3]
That decision must control here, and we therefore bold that defendant’s motion for the substitution of the Director General should have been granted, and that defendant should have been dismissed from the suit. As a matter of law the defendant corporation was not liable on the cause of action exhibited, and it is not now material to consider whether error was committed by the trial court in any of the rulings complained of, since, in any event, it was error without injury. In such a case we will not reverse but will affirm the judgment appealed from, as being in accordance with the law of the ease.
Our cases of L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 204 Ala. 150 , 85 South. 372 , and Grim v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 89 South. 376 , 1
are not in accord with the ruling of the federal Supreme Court, and on the point in question they must be overruled.
The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
1
Ante, p. 110.
Concurrence
THOMAS, J.
(concurring.) Whenever the question has been presented, I have maintained that the. sovereign must be sued for tort by consent, and therefore upon its own terms (Moon v. Hines, 205 Ala. 355 , 87 South. 603 , 13 A. L. R. 1020); that when the United States took over transportation properties of corporations and persons and operated the same there was no divided control; and that under the Federal Control Transportation System Act (and section 10 thereof) and orders of the Directors General of Railroads, no authority for suit for a tort was given against the corporation or owner, the result of the government’s operation of such transportation properties. See my dissenting opinion in Crim v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 89 South. 376 , 2
L.
& N. R. R. Co. v. Heidtmueller, 89 South. 191 , 3
L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Holmes, ante, p. 304, 89 South. 610 , and the opinion of this court in Moon v. Hines, supra.
2
Ante, p. 310.
3
Ante, p. 29.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.