Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

acquired. This action was tried by a jury in the usual way and, we may add, with the usual result. The case is not entitled in the equity cause. It is not a part of the record in that cause. See Palmer v. Scriven, 21 Fed. Rep. 354.

Plaintiff may rely upon § 3 of the Judiciary Act approved March 3, 1887, 25 Stat. 436.

In this connection we call attention to the fact that the repealing clause of said act contains this proviso:

Provided, that this act shall not affect the jurisdiction over or disposition of any suit removed from the court of any State, or suit commenced in any court of the United States, before the passage hereof, except as otherwise expressly pro vided in this act."

The receivers were appointed in this case prior to March 3, 1887. If the plaintiff shall claim any advantage by reason of the said 3d section of the act of March 3, 1887, above quoted, our answer is that the receivership suit, being commenced and pending at the time of the passage of the said act, is expressly excepted from its provisions.

This point has been so expressly adjudged in the case of this very receivership by the learned Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit. See Missouri Pacific Railway v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 311.

It seems to be so plain that pending suits are excepted from the provisions of the act that it would be an attempt to construe a provision too plain for construction to elaborate the point. The result is that the present case must be determined wholly irrespective of the third section of the act of March 3, 1887.

But supposing, for the argument, that we are mistaken on this point, and that the third section of the act of March 3, 1887, applies to the present suit, then we submit that it is clear that the permission which that act gives to sue a receiver without the previous leave of the court in which such receiver was appointed, cannot confer any right to sue such receiver in any court which has not by la 'v jurisdiction over the suit thus to be brought. Note that while the act of March 3, 1887, provides that such suit may be brought without the previous leave of

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

the court, it does not prevent the claimant from asking for such leave. In the present case no such leave was applied for, nor was the present action brought with the sanction or under the direction of the court that appointed the receivers. The present suit is, therefore, in no sense a proceeding in the equity cause, or a dependency of or an adjunct to it.

II. The alleged cause of action, founded upon the statute of Louisiana, was not enforceable in the Federal court in Texas. The case should have been dismissed on this ground.

The action was founded upon a statute of Louisiana, recited in the petition, conferring a right of action upon the surviving relatives therein described, for damages for injuries resulting in death. The right to maintain such an action in the courts of a State other than that in which the wrongful act was committed and the statutory remedy conferred, has been a question upon which the decisions have been numerous and conflicting. The rule in the several States has never been uniform, but we think it may be safely said that the general tendency. of decision in the state courts has been adverse to the doctrine that actions of the character referred to may be maintained in the courts of a State foreign to that where the wrong occurred and the statutory remedy existed.

The rule that the courts of Texas will not take jurisdiction of an action for damages of this character, where the cause arose in another State and under a foreign statute dissimilar in terms to the corresponding Texas statute, or where there is no corresponding Texas statute, has been repeatedly announced by the highest state court in Texas. Willis v. Missouri Pacific Railway, 61 Texas, 432; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Richards, 68 Texas, 375; St. Louis, Iron Mountain dc. Railway v. McCormick, 71 Texas, 661. See also Turner v. Cross, 18 S. W. Rep. 578; and Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Collins, Opinion of the Supreme Court of Texas, March 22, 1892.

III. Any cause of action which the plaintiff may have had was, in any aspect of the case, barred by the statute of limitation of both the States of Louisiana and Texas.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. W. Hallett Phillips for defendant in error.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

The Texas and Pacific Railway Company is a corporation deriving its corporate powers from acts of Congress, and was held in Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1, to be entitled, under the act of March 3, 1875, to have suits brought against it in the state courts removed to the Circuit Courts of the United States on the ground that they were suits arising under the laws of the United States. The reasoning was that this must be so since the company derived its powers, functions and duties from those acts, and suits against it necessarily involved the exercise of those powers, functions and duties as an original ingredient.

These receivers were appointed by the Circuit Court, and derived their powers from and discharged their duties subject to its orders. Those orders were entered, and all action of the court in the premises taken, by virtue of judicial power possessed and exercised under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

In respect of liability, such as is set up here, the receiver stands in the place of the corporation. As observed by Mr. Justice Brown, delivering the opinion of the court in McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 U. S. 327, 332: “ Actions against the receiver are in law actions against the receivership, or the funds in the hands of the receiver, and his contracts, misfeasances, negligences and liabilities are official and not personal, and judgments against him as receiver are payable only from the funds in his hands."

Hence it has been often decided that the jurisdiction of the court appointing a receiver is necessarily exclusive, and that actions at law cannot be prosecuted against him except by leave of that court. Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203; Thompson v. Scott, 4 Dillon,.508, 512.

This was the general rule in the absence of statute; but by the third section of the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, c. 373, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, 436, c. 866, it is provided :

Opinion of the Court.

“That every receiver or manager of any property appointed by any court of the United States may be sued in' respect of any act or transaction of his in carrying on the business connected with such property, without the previous leave of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed; but such suit shall be subject to the general equity jurisdiction of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed, so far as the same shall be necessary to the ends of justice."

And we are of opinion that although the injury was inflicted January 6, 1887, the suit, which was commenced on the 3d of September of that year, comes within the section.

McNulta v. Lochridge, supra, was an action brought in a state court July 13, 1887, against the receiver of a railway, to recover for the death of certain persons, alleged to have been caused by his negligence in the operation of the road, on January 15, 1887. No leave to sue had been granted by the court of the appointment of the receiver, but we held that section 3 applied and there was no foundation for the position that the receiver was not liable to suit without such permission.

Section 6 of the act is as follows:

“That the last paragraph of section five of the act of Congress approved March third, eighteen hundred and seventyfive, entitled ' An act to determine the jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of the United States and to regulate the removal of causes from state courts, and for other purposes,' and section six hundred and forty of the Revised Statutes, and all laws and parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of this act, be, and the same are hereby repealed : Provided, That this act shall not affect the jurisdiction over or disposition of any suit removed from the court of any State, or suit commenced in any court of the United States, before the passage hereof except as otherwise expressly provided in this act.”

It is argued that, under this proviso, the receivership suit having been commenced before and being pending at the time of the passage of the act, was excepted from its provisions, and that leave to sue was still required. We do not think so. The proviso was intended to prevent the loss of jurisdiction by reason of the repeal of prior acts and parts of acts, but

Opinion of the Court.

it does not limit the operation of the express provisions of section three.

As jurisdiction without leave is maintainable through the act of Congress, and as the receivers became such by reason of, 'and derived their authority from, and operated the road in obedience to, the orders of the Circuit Court in the exercise of its judicial powers, we hold that jurisdiction existed because the suit was one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and this is in harmony with previous decisions. Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334; Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U. S. 421; Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628. The objections raised in respect of the matter of diverse citizenship cannot, therefore, be sustained.

It is said further that jurisdiction over the receivers, personally, was lacking, because defendant Brown resided in the Northern District of Texas and defendant Sheldon was an inhabitant of Louisiana ; and, that under the act of 1887 the action could not be instituted in a district whereof neither of the defendants was an inhabitant. If the suit be regarded as merely ancillary to the receivership the objection is without force, but irrespective of that, this immunity is a personal privilege which may be waived. The defendants not only demurred but answered, and the second ground of demurrer was that the petition did not set out a cause of action. Under such circumstances they could not thereafter challenge the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the suit had been brought in the wrong district. St. Louis &c. Railway Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127; Fitzgerald Construction Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S.98; First Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 132 U. S. 141.

The statutory limitation in Louisiana and in Texas, upon the right of action asserted in this case, was one year, and that defence was interposed to the amended petition, which was not filed until that period had elapsed. It is put, in argument, upon two grounds: (1) that jurisdiction did not appear by the original petition ; (2) that the amended petition set up a new cause of action. Assuming that the first ground is

open to consideration, as brought to our attention, it is sufficient to say that, in the light of the observations already

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »