There really is no historical connection to St Louis for this engine, just like there is none for most of the collection. There are plenty of "last of their kind" engines in that museum that never ran anywhere near Missouri, including a Y-6, SP GS-6, among others there. It's a very low-key but important collection of motive power, one of the most impressive collections in the country (even though some pieces are basket cases). They're fighting for it because they've held it for several years and it's an extremely rare locomotive. That's more than enough motivation to fight for it.
I don't get why folks think a RR museum has to limit their displays to equipment that only operated in that area originally. I think the St Louis museum is as close to a "comprehensive American RR museum" as exists in this country. If you read their charter, I'd say this engine falls under their concept nicely: http://www.museumoftransport.org/about.htm

We can second guess collection decisions at any museum, after the fact.

Think about your site. Do you have things which might also fit another museum's collection criteria

Our museum was contacted by a museum to the north of us, claiming cars in our collection because they operated near their location, for 19 years.... of course they were built near our location, and operated near our location for 15 years, some 100+ year ago...

We can all make claims for other's stuff... be resonable... its not really ours.

I've had a good freind of mine who is a VERY accomplished litagator read thru the 952 filings including the latest Appeallate Courts decision.
In his opinion he feels the the Chapter has a very strong chance of prevailing at trial for a number of legal reasons, most of which were raised by the Appeals Court reversal.
He says that of particular importance is the US Supreme Courts ruling not long ago in the case of the General locomotive. I'm not familiar with that case or finding but he says it very materially strengthens the Chapters case???
Assuming they prevail at the end of the whole process and take back possession of this important historical piece then comes the challenge of getting her back "home" and funding her real "rehab".
Too bad the parties can't reach a settlement of some sort as I'm sure the trial will end up costing at least $100,000 between them and that could go a good ways towards fixing her up!!
IMHO-Ross Rowland

I'm breaking my own self-imposed rule on this, but this will be my second and last post on the matter. I am not (yet) an accomplished litigator, but I am a VERY good reader, and think a few things are being overlooked or mistated.

1.) If you actually read the opinion, it says several time that the record is unclear or undeveloped on the issues raised by Court of Appeals in their opinion. These isses can't be guessed at by me or you, as they aren't in the record.

2.) There was no "recent" Supreme Court case regarding Western and Atlantic #3, better known as "The General." That case, of which the L&N won at all steps involved the City of Chattanooga's claim to the locomotive. For many years the locomotive had been displayed by the NC&StL and later the L&N at the company's Chattanooga station. The L&N removed her and restored her for the Civil War Centennial. The W&A was chartered and owned by the state or Georgia, and that is who really owned the locomotive, as the NC&StL and later the L&N were lessors. At no time did the city of Chattanooga actually have posession of the locomotive, although the mayor considered her to be an important artifact. By the late 1960s, the L&N's lease for the W&A was about up, and as part of the renewal negotiations, the L&N agreed to return the locomotive to the state of Georgia. When it was in transit to Kennesaw to take part in a fundraising event, the Chattanooga police stopped and seized the locomotive. The mayor, (I think his name was Ralph Kelly) filed the suit, and lost.

Despite what Mr. Rowland's friend says, there are a lot of factual distictions between these two cases, including;
- There was never an agreement between the City of Chattanooga and the W&A, NC&StL, or the L&N.
- The locomotive was always on railroad property and the railroad had both posession and title (title by virture of the lease of the W&A).

As I said, the L&N ultimately prevailed, and the Supreme Court refused to even hear the case, upholding the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. By the way, this was over thirty years ago, as when the L&N finally turned the locomotive over to the state or Georgia, they did so in a ceremony to Governor Jimmy Carter.

3.) As I said before, and will continue to say, for the R&LHS to win, they still have to prevail on the merits at trial, thus even this isn't a total victory for them, nor is it a total defeat to St. Louis County. While the Court of Appeals gave some direction, since they filed suit, they bear the burden to produce facts and cite relevant law to show how they prevail on the merits of their claim. If anything it shows how litigation is often a zero-sum game. Sure, one may forestall a final decision on the merits, but that means you still have to go back to square one and start over again, especially in this case. The chapter still bears the burden.

4.) If I remember correctly, I'll have to dig out my copies of the original pleadings, the original summary jugement by the trial court didn't address all of the defense raised by Saint Louis County.

5.) Strangely, I find myself agreeing with Mr. Rowland that this is going to cost a lot of money to litigate. However, while it's all nice and thoughtful sounding to say things like "I wish they could just work this out," I don't think this is a situation where you can compromise. I guess the final decision could be that the R&LHS basically has title to it, but by virtue of the permanant loan agreement St. Louis County has and retains posession. If the R&LHS chapter prevails, I don't know where they will keep it, or what they would do with it.

Okay, I've said enough. If anyone wants to chat with me about it, PM me.

I can certainly envision a reasonable settlement somewhat along these lines;
1. Museum agrees to turn over care,custody&control to Chapter effective 60 days later.
2. Chapter agrees to:
a. Arrange for removal from Museum property within 60 days.
b. Make a financial donation to museum in the amount of $10,000.

Seems to me both "sides" have "won"!! Museum not only doesn't end up spending $35-50 K in legal fees (and the very real chance of losing the verdict) but recieves $10k to use however it chooses.
Chapter gets its property,can bring her home and do the real rehab they're committed to doing.
I guess what may reduce the chances of something like this getting worked out is that the Museum side is of course the County and thus the public treasury, so perhaps there isn't the same risk/reward ratio thinking as if it were a private sector outfit???
Despite that, I'd sure like to see some kind of settlement vs. all that dough going down the legal black hole!!!
IMHO-Ross Rowland

Folks,
As this is my one of my few posts here, I have a question.
If the museum loses this case will it open the doors for others
to lay claim to other items located there? Or perhaps other
museums, railroad or not? As a Reading fan I would like to
see the inspection Loco closer to home but feel that it is taken
care of there and is there for folks to see. So I am not
complaining that it is not located closer to me on the East.
As a volunteer President of a Civil War museum in the Philly,
our museum had to go through some what the same ordeal
about a certain item that was located at another CW museum for years
and we asked for it back and went into litigation. After five years
and some money spent an agreement was met and both
facilities are happy and the item will be taken care of for
generations to come. Is not this what should be the case here
as well??
I was in St. Louis a little over a week ago and visited the
museum and did not want to leave and was impressed. I also
saw the locomotive in question and loved her. I also loved
all the others as well. I was in the area for a business meeting
and dropped in. Funny thing to see two SEPTA trolley's at the
museum. I do not think that SEPTA wants them back, however
since one has been restored and looks better than what we have
here, you never know......
I see Mr. Rowland as setting his comments as the best way
to work this out, but both parties are way too far into this
ballgame to backdown.

I am sorry for the long post,

Eric

I did not mean to imply that the MOT, nor any other museum, should not be in pocession of a piece of equipment not native to it's location. What I was asking was why the museum would put up such a fight and an investment of funds towards legal fees for that specific engine considering it's questionable owndership. The only answer I can see would be either they emotionally bonded with it or perhaps it's the pride of owning such a diverse collection of rare steam engines. I don't see this engine being a major draw to the museum - except perhaps by Pennsyvlanians. A cash settlement of some size would seem just for stewardship over the years and would seem to make sense considering the value of having the engine closer to "home" at a location where it's placement would be a greater draw and better connection to it's history. A CB&Q Zephyr has little if any value in Saudi Arabia!

As for a National museum - you'd expect to see many steam engines in all of thier typical wheel arrangements with heritages irrelevent to the museum location. Note I said "typical" and keep in mind that the DL&W engine is disputed rather then an officially recognized donation or purchase. It would be odd if the only Big Boy in the country was in Scranton (though it is a National Museum/ Park), and it was officially donated to it's collection. And fortunately, there are many! The 952 was not officially donated. It has not true relevance to a national collection nor to a Missouri collection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine it's not a huge draw to the museum in MO nor is it typical of the many steam engines that ran in the continental US.

So, again - why the long and expensive fight? Wouldn't the MOT be wise to accept or negotiate an equitable cash settlement benefiting both parties? Unless of course the 952 has become a loving pet or the pride of ownership of such a diverse collection is too great an obsticle.

As for your vision, Ross, my guess would be that $10,000 would be as equitable to MOT as the amount that the government offered Kovalchick for EBT. I'm not sure what such an offer should be without the facts regarding transportion, maintanence, any restoration and possible financial loss to the MOT if relinquished.

/Mitch

I'm sorry to say that the high probability is that they will not reach a settlement and the matter will eventually go to trial and then the loser at trial will probably appeal the verdict and somewhere between $75,000-$125,000 will have been spent in legal fees at the end of the day.
I guess the moral of this story is if you have anything in your collection without very clear title and you care about keeping it-then don't let it sit in the back lot until trees are growing out of it or you never know when the "owners" will show up and demand it back!!
IMHO-Ross Rowland