# Petitioners Reply Brief — Gardner v. Panama Railroad

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386407_0067%3A4

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petitioners Reply Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1951
- **Citation:** 342 U.S. 29

## Text

- a E OfficeSunrs beth
j . i - | 3 : % : : . | | :
LIBRARY ~ ‘>. OCE-42 1951. |
' i CouURT US. : ae a Ea
a) sie INTHE LS
‘Supreme Court of the Wnited ‘States
“OCTOBER TERM, 1951. . - Seen
No. 22.
“EVELYN N C. GARDNER, yea Teepe Ses

’ Petitioner, .
¥, se
PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation,

e *

+ bee Loe Respondent. To

“On \ RIT OF Ceitiiniie TO THE, Unitep States Cov RT OF
: ABPRALS FOR THE Fiera Circuit.

.

oon nt . — eas —
PETITIONER’S REPLY ‘BRIEF.
baa hea : sae eciah Pee E NT om "
EUGENE. EISENMANN,
‘es _ ‘Counsel for Petitioner.
Van Sic LEN, "Risa & DE CastRo, >
Proctors for Petitioner, —, |
6 Tivoli Avenue,
Ancon, Canal Zone,
. ; 2
Evoene EisenMann, =
* Wooprow dE CastRO, . star ge
Of Counsel. )

} , ; .. Tas Coury Parss, N.Y. C.

* ba . bd

a

. ore Lee ee Zs rhe: , PAGE Q.
As RA nb Leceeltededees Sh Pp ene yes ee ree oan Pes
sf ee 4 ; ; #4, ; Bais each We :
2. “Jurisdiction”. cover er ae ips Whew bea riz.
Conclusion .. .....5...: Ma Ate OA ae i: Biba he us SCORERS Lae ais
a Cyrations: ee
‘Cases:
Connett v. C ity of Jerseyville, 96 F KF. rE 392 at 400 b
(C.'C. A. 7, 4938) ren eee ee 3,4
Peres. Unite States, 340 U: S. 135 at 140, ut
fe) SSRN Ra eee cs Unite d States, 74 F. Supp: 786 at 187. On

Statutes: wns Stinsee Ea eae ee:
_ Federal’ Tort. Claims ‘Act, Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, 3
- reenacted as 28 U.S. C. 1346(b), 2671 and 2679 2

Public Law 172, July 16, 1948, Sist Congress; ch.
340; 63 Stat. mee; 28 U. 5. €. er pe ters 2, 4

Congre sriowal oo pone Siiakt aes »

Ds Bs Code Congressional Servi ice, 81st ( ongress,
Ist Session, 194, vol. : 2, pp. 1589- 158 en OG ioe

i

.
4

Br.

4 «&

eae .

+3 ?
“Tt would be unfair to the legistature = assume
that it intended to strike>down’ the remedy pro-
‘vided in thé original Act, with no’ saving clause,
‘without extending the relief. afforded by the
amendment to the existing cértifieate holders.
_ There is no-apparent reason why this should be
done. To do so would be utterly inconsistent

- . : . bad ; ad
. ;
4°
a ‘

with. the expressed, intention of. the legistature |
a oe 5 ¢ WU hte seme ae
So here, respondent’s contention not ‘only disregards
the. established Congr essional policy of liability for
~ Forts. of. government ‘corporations even when there

'- Js no statutory provision (Keifer & Keifer v. Recon-

struction Finance Corp., 306. U. S. 381), but would |

gi seg subvert the expressed. purpose of. Public
Law -172 to ‘‘eontinue inimpaired *.* * the amena-.
bility of the C ompany to suit in the ordinary course’’

(U.S. Code ooo apa paths 8ist Congress, Ist

ee [Session 1949, vol. . PP. 589-1593). >. :

bias CONCLUSION. ase :

‘The ‘eaikimaied of the Courts Salil should be i
versed with costs, and the case remanded for trial —
on the-merits. ” Ao Sebi ieee ag! :

Formas,

Respectfully submitted,
; : EUGEN EB EISENMANN,
Counsel for Petitioner.
y.° ; oe
Van Sictex, Ramirez & pe Casrno,
-Proctors for Petitioner, a a , a
6 Tivoli Avenue, nee
Ancon,:Canal Zone. —

s
*

Ant eae, ‘ghee
Evoenk Eisexmann, ‘ x ttn
Woopr 1OW “DE Castro, “ha 3 ENS
Of Counsel.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386407_0067%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.