Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

276 F. 451

Docket No. 1123.

Dougherty v. Payne

Florida Southern District Court

Decided June 9, 1921.)

Florida Southern District Court · decided 1921-06-09

<p>Railroads New, vol. 6A Key-No. Series — Director General not suable for malicious prosecution.</p> <p>An action for malicious prosecution cannot be maintained against the Director General of Railroads, as such, for an act of one of the employees of a railroad system under his control.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1923

1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Denied · Decided 1921-06-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Railroads New, vol. 6A Key-No. Series — Director General not suable for malicious prosecution.

¶2An action for malicious prosecution cannot be maintained against the Director General of Railroads, as such, for an act of one of the employees of a railroad system under his control.

¶3At Law. Action by Pearl Dougherty against John Barton Payne, Director General of Railroads. On motion for leave to file amended declaration.

¶4Denied.

¶5Butler & Boyer, of Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff.

¶6John E. & Julian Hartridge, of Jacksonville, Ela., for defendant.

¶7CALL, District Judge.

¶8This cause comes on for a hearing upon the motion for leave to file an amended declaration. Heretofore, on May 27th insti, a demurrer was sustained to the declaration.

¶9The fifth ground of the demurrer raised the question whether an action for malicious prosecution could be brought against the Director General of Railroads, as such officer, for the actions of one of the employees of a railroad system under his control. A careful study of the acts of Congress covering the governmental control of transportation systems seems to me to answer this question in the negative. Such being my view, no purpose would be subserved in granting the motion to amend, and it will therefore be denied.

/276/f1d/451 · .json · Public domain