No. 23914 Precedential Suit dismissed. Processed

Siragusa v. Illinois Cent. R.

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 27, 1922 · 94 So. 376

Cited by

Lane v. Mud Supply Co. 111 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Robinson v. Allen 88 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Schwandt v. Nunez 71 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
Tyler Co. v. Sutton 51 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Tedesco v. Board of Sup'rs of Elections 43 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1949
Succession of Markham 156 So. 225 La. 1934
Mower v. Barrow 133 So. 782 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1931
Neal v. Murff 133 So. 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Keith v. Lee 127 So. 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Breazeale v. Peters 7 La. App. 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Roberts v. Phillips 6 La. App. 394 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1927

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

145 La. 973 not in our corpus
Alfred Hiller Co. v. Hotel Grunewald Co. 147 La. 129
146 La. 580 not in our corpus
115 La. 911 not in our corpus
127 La. 1094 not in our corpus
Clements v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 148 La. 1050
Taylor v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. 151 La. 270
Duncan v. Helm 21 La. Ann. 303
19 La. Ann. 296 not in our corpus

Opinion text

LAND, J. On February 20, 1919, plaintiffs instituted suit against defendant railroad company, at that time operated under federal control, to recover damages for the death of their father, alleged to have occurred June 9, 1918, at a crossing in a collision between a train of defendant company and a wagon in which deceased was riding at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs prayed for a judgment for damages in their favor against the railroad company. Defendant peremptorily excepted to plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action in so far as same related to said company, on the ground that on October 28, 1918, the Director General of Railroads had issued General Order No. 50, which provides and directs that all suits against railroads, except for penalties and forfeitures, be brought against the Director General, and that the present suit having been brought since October 28, 1918, should have been brought against the Director General, and not against the defendant railroad company. This exception was overruled, and, upon the trial of the case on its merits, a judgment was rendered in favor of defendant company, rejecting the demand of plaintiffs. [1] Plaintiffs alone have appealed. Defendant company has filed no answer to the appeal, praying for the amendment of the judgment and the sustaining of the exception. This court is not at liberty, in the absence of answer to the appeal, to review the ruling of the lower court, and to amend the judgment appealed from, by converting it into a judgment maintaining an exception overruled by the trial judge. C. P. art. 888; Chopin v. Freeman, 145 La. 973 , 83 South. 210 ; Alfred Hiller Co. v. Hotel Grunewald Co., 147 La. 129 , 84 South. 520 ; Ervin v. Shelby’s Heirs, 146 La. 580 , 83 South. 835 ; City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Jockey Club, 115 La. 911 , 40 South. 331 ; Oglesby v. Turner, 127 La. 1094 , 54 South. 400 . [2] Nor are we at liberty to review the case upon its merits. Under General Orders *747 Nos. 50 and 50A of the Director General of Railroads, the Director General is the proper defendant in an action for injuries sustained by a plaintiff in the crossing accident, which occurred during the federal control. Clements v. T. & P. R. Co., 148 La. 1050 , 88 South. 394 ; Taylor v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., 151 La. 270 , 91 South. 732 ; Mrs. Maude Vernon v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. (No. 23710) 95 South.-; 1 and Mrs. Maude Boutrie v. Director General of Railroads (No. 24595 on the docket of this court) 95 South. -. 2 , [3] The record in this case disclosing a want of proper parties, this court will ex officio dismiss the appeal without motion. Martin v. Taylor, 21 La. Ann. 303 ; Tupery v. Lafitte, 19 La. Ann. 296 ; Condon v. Samory, 12 La. Ann, 801. It is therefore ordered that the suit be dismissed, at the cost of plaintiffs. ST. PAUD, J., concurs in the result. O’NIEDD, J., being absent from the state, takes no part in the decision of the case. 153 La. —. 153 La. —.