The New York Times The New York Times Washington   
Search:  

Powered by: FindLaw

Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
E I DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. v. DAVIS, 264 U.S. 456 (1924)

U.S. Supreme Court

E I DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. v. DAVIS, 264 U.S. 456 (1924)

264 U.S. 456

E. L. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
v.
DAVIS, Director General of Railroads.
No. 517.

Argued March 14, 1924.
Decided. April 7, 1924.

[264 U.S. 456, 457]   Messrs. C. H. Browder, of Chicago, Ill., and C. A. Cunningham and Z. B. Harrison, both of Blytheville, Ark., for petitioner.

[264 U.S. 456, 458]   Mr. A. A. McLaughlin, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

[264 U.S. 456, 459]  

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action to recover demurrage charges accrued at Little Rock, Ark., during May, June, and July, 1918, on certain shipments of cotton linters. The defendant, petitioner here, demurred to the complaint on the grounds: (a) That the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitation; and (b) that plaintiff was without authority to bring the action. The District Court sustained the demurrer, but was reversed by the Court of Appeals. 287 Fed. 522.

There is nothing in the second point, and we dispose of it at once. The contention is that the authority to maintain the action is vested in the Director General of Railroads, originally designated under the Federal Control Act (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 3115 3/4 a-3115 3/4 p), and continued by the President under sections 202 and 211 of Transportation Act 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 459, 469 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, 10071 1/4 b, 10071 1/4 e), and not in Davis, as Agent, appointed under section 206 of the latter act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, 10071 1/4 cc). Apt allegations, however, are found in the body of the complaint to bring the plaintiff, Davis, within the provisions of sections 202 and 211. At most, the words 'as agent' are surplusage, and it is impossible that defendant could have been prejudiced by their use. Act Feb. 26, 1919, c. 48, 40 Stat. 1181 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 1246).

The action was brought more than three years after the cause of action accrued. The statute relied upon as a bar is section 424, Transportation Act 1920, 41 Stat. 491, 492 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, 8584), being a new paragraph added to section 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act by way of amendment. The pertinent words are:

It is insisted that the United States-or the Director General, representing the United States-is included in the provision as a carrier [264 U.S. 456, 460]   subject to the act. Our opinion is otherwise. The act consists of five titles. Title 2 is devoted exclusively to the subject of the termination of federal control, which it is declared shall take place at 12:01 a. m., March 1, 1920-the act becoming effective February 28, 1920. Title 3 deals only with the subject of disputes between carriers and their employees and subordinate officials, creates Railroad Boards of Labor Adjustment and a Railroad Labor Board, and vests them with appropriate powers. Title 4 consists entirely of amendments to the Interstate Commerce Act, and includes section 424, here relied upon. While these three titles are concerned with related subjects, they are entirely distinct one from another Title 2, which is complete in itself, among other things, provides, in section 200 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, 10071 1/4 aa), that after the termination of federal control the President shall have no power to use or operate the railroads or systems of transportation, or to control or supervise the carriers or their business affairs; and directs him (section 202), to adjust, settle, liquidate, and wind up all matters and all questions and disputes, of whatsoever nature, arising out of or incident to federal control as soon as practicable after the termination thereof. The only provision prescribing a period of limitation definitely in respect of such matters, is found in section 206(a), and it relates only to actions, suits and proceedings brought against an agent to be designated by the President for that purpose, and fixes as the period of limitation that now prescribed by state or federal statutes, but not later than two years from the passage of the act. In this title, thus specifically devoted to the subject of winding up matters arising out of federal control, nothing is to be found which suggests any limitation of time within which actions, suits or proceedings shall be brought to enforce liabilities arising out of federal control, in favor of the United States.

Turning now to title 4, amending the Interstate Commerce Act, the declaration at the beginning is that its [264 U.S. 456, 461]   provisions 'shall apply to common carriers' engaged in various enumerated kinds of transportation. Section 400, p. 474 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, 8563). There is to be found in this title no provision specifically relating to the period of federal control or dealing with the question of liability to or of the government in respect of any matter arising during such control. If Congress had intended to fix a period of limitation applicable to actions, suits or proceedings brought in behalf of the United States in respect of liabilities arising out of federal control, we should naturally expect to find it in title 2, where such matters are exclusively dealt with; and not in title 4, which deals with common carriers entirely apart from such control. It may not have been unusual in common speech, to describe the Director General as a carrier while he was operating the railroads; but it is clear that he was not intended to be included by that term as it is generally employed in acts of Congress. Federal Control Act, c. 25, 40 Stat. 451, repeatedly recognizes a distinction between the President-including, of course, the Director General-and the carriers. The first section (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 3115 3/4 a) itself limits the meaning of the word 'carriers' to railroads and systems of transportation, which as carriers had been taken over by the President. Accurately speaking, the Director General was not a carrier, but an operator of carriers. The distinction to which we have referred, constantly appears in the provisions of the act, as, for example:

The foregoing analysis of the acts of Congress viewed in the light of the principles just stated, demonstrates that section 424 has no application to an action of the kind here involved, but applies to common carriers apart from their operation under federal control, and we so hold.

Affirmed.

Copyright © 2003 FindLaw