Vann v. Southern Railway Co.

104 S.E. 170, 180 N.C. 659, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 161

Opinion

Pee OueiaM.

There were divers exceptions assigned as error, but tbey were all abandoned in tbis Court, save exception 4, tbat tbe court overruled tbe motion of tbe Southern Railroad Company to dismiss tbe action as to it “upon tbe ground and because of its nonliability by reason of Federal control,” which motion .was in writing, and is set out in tbe record.

It is not necessary to discuss tbis point, as it was fully considered and decided in Clements v. R. R., 179 N. C., 225, as to tbe same defendant in which we affirmed tbe decision in Hill v. Director General, 178 N. C., 609, tbat tbe Director General was in effect a receiver, and therefore tbe action will lie against him under tbe act’ of Congress, and tbat tbe defendant, tbe Southern Railroad Company, was properly joined as a ‘codefendant under tbe rulings in Logan v. R. R., 116 N. C., 940; Harden v. R. R., 129 N. C., 354, and tbe uniform decisions of tbis Court since.

Tbe decision in Clements v. R. R., supra, and other cases cited above, and tbe reasons tberefor, were reviewed and reaffirmed in Gilliam v. R. R., 179 N. C., 508.

Upon tbe authority of tbe above cases, and for tbe reasons therein given, we find in tbis appeal

No error.