BEN N. GIFFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
WICHITA FALLS & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that federal rules of civil procedure, specifically Rule 15, govern amendments to correct misnomers, and the trial court erred in refusing to allow the amendment and dismissing the case.
Plaintiff sued the Wichita Falls & Southern Railway Company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Evidence showed the Wichita Falls & Southern R…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misnomer cases and more on FLexlaw
The record shows that these two corporations are affiliated in a manner known primarily to themselves and their owners and where intercorporate relationships, such as are here present, exists, it would constitute a denial of justice to permit one such corporation to pursue a policy adopted by the defendant in this case and after a long and hard trial and an appeal on which the defendant lost,-then to be permitted, just before the second trial begins, to say: “You are suing the wrong person; you should have sued my Siamese sister,” and by this action bring about a dismissal of the case and deny plaintiff the right to have his cause of action determined on its merits. Where intercorporate relationships exist in cases such as this all such corporations are held to a higher degree of frank disclosure of mistakes such as was made in this case, than is required in other cases where no close relationship exists.
The judgment in this case is wrong. For that reason the case is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing filed in the above styled and numbered case takes exception to the following statement in the court’s opinion: “The evidence further shows that these corporations are inter-related and subsidiaries of a third corporation.” (Italics supplied.) Ap-pellee insists there is no evidence to support the finding by the court that ap-pellee is a “subsidiary of a third corporation.”
The court has carefully reviewed the record touching this matter and since it could be the court misunderstands the testimony of a witness produced on behalf of the defendant on the subject, to avoid any possibility of error in this regard, it is
Ordered that the words: “and subsidiaries of a third corporation” be stricken from the opinion as they appear in paragraph 6 thereof.
Otherwise petition for rehearing is hereby
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. Universal Builders, Inc., 501 F.2d 324 (7th Cir. 1974)
-
Welch v. La. Power & Light Co., 466 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Browning-Ferris Mach. Co., 227 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1955)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938)
- Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 189 F.2d 242 (3d Cir. 1951)
- Zumwalt v. Gardner, 160 F.2d 298 (8th Cir. 1947)
- Copeland Motor Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 199 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1952)
- Grandey v. Pac. Indem. Co., 217 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1954)
- United States v. A. H. Fischer Lumber Co., 162 F.2d 872 (4th Cir. 1947)
- Flynn v. United States, 217 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1954)
- Gifford v. Wichita Falls & S. Ry. Co., 211 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1954)