It would appear that the court has ruled in favor of St. Louis County and the Museum of Transportation in the 952 issue due to statute of limitations.
I tried to attach the PDF file of the ruling, but message says the board attachment quota has been reached?
Hopefully this puts the matter to rest once and for all and everyone can get back to everyday life.

I also have a copy of Judge Limbaugh's Order and Memorandum in this case. PM me offline if you wish to have a copy.

Of interest, in the Order, the Court quotes previous Court of Appeals statement of Facts, especially regarding the fact that the R&LHS probably began demanding a return of the 952 back in the late 1980s or 1990s, far beyond the 5 year statute of limitations for replevin in Missouri.

While I share Frisco1522's optimism, I'm sure an appeal is in the works on the part of the chapter. The end may not be near.

While I have not yet read the order I would tend to agree that the ballgame is probably not over if the system provides for an appeal of this decision.

As I've previously posted the folks behind this effort have very deep pockets and an equal amount of determination. Therefore, I'd guess that if the legal system allows it, an appeal is a near certainty???

Time will tell!!

IMHO-Ross Rowland

If that's the case how come the group just don't go and buy it off the museum? Ohio Central bought a steam loco of RTM.

Len.

HISTORICALLY speaking, museums don't just sell off parts of their collections or exhibits. They know what they have and I'm sure they won't sell it.

EMD,
Everything is for sale, if the price is right, money talks people listen. it's been that way for years and years to come.

Len.

I AM A PERSON, NOT A LOCOMOTIVE! Can't you read?

I can read that your a smart ??? !
And I bet I'm not the only one that feels that way.

Len.

EDM is NOT being a smart ??? Just get his name right and all will be well. Ain't this like the third time is as many days that folks have gotten it WRONG? Gezz, lighten up.
Rob

I don't mean to get personal, Sure-kill Vale, but he's corrected you once already. "EMD" is the abbreviation for the former GM locomotive division (or the currentElectro-Motive Diesel); "EDM" is the moniker chosen by a particular poster.

Is it really that hard to read, Susquehanna Wally? >:-)

To try and answer your somewhat ignorant question, if we are to believe some of the legal positions in this case (or at least the allegations), the Lackawanna Chapter R&LHS technically already OWNS DL&W 952; it was supposedly on "extended loan" to the museum in St. Louis. The origins of the suit, as I recall, was that the R&LHS believed that "their" loco had been neglected and improperly cared for (they had a good case at the time; it was shoved down a back track, out in the open, and markedly deteriorated), and so they "wanted it back."

So, to School-killer Malley, I'll ask: "Why would the R&LHS or its chapter offer to buy back something they consider rightfully theirs in the first place?"

(BTW, Conrad's SLDoNA says that the loco was "donated" to the museum in May 1953. Korean War era, folks.)

And a further question to Rowland or anyone else with any clue into the mindset of those folks: IF the R&LHS/Chapter wants the loco back AND, as professed, they have no interest (rather, an antagonistic disinterest) in having this significant DL&W locomotive displayed at Steamtown NHS.......... then just WHERE THE [long and colorful string of expletives deleted] do they expect to go with it IF they were to get it? I'm sorry, but this has obviously turned into an ugly spite contest that does nothing to make preservationists look good. I went from rooting for the R&LHS to rooting for the Museum a long time ago.

Well I'm sorry, I only see out of one eye and I miss read his name wrong, and spell it wrong.
when you get perfect tell us about it.



Len.

Gee I'm sorry, I'd swear that I posted something about the 952 litigation, but I'm having trouble locating the subject matter. I seem to have wandered into a CB radio channel.

I imagine the reason the R&LHS and its chapter never simply “bought” the 952 back from MOT was probably for the same reason we will never see that PRR 0-6-0 at the bottom of the quarry, It is just not in the cards, nor was it possible. To say that the R&LHS chapter should have just "bought" the locomotive demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the disagreement between the R&LHS and St. Louis County. I'm sure one of the R&LHS principals (or “deep pockets” to use Mr. Rowland’s terminology) would say something to the effect of "Why should we buy it back when we already own it?" The litigation was over who was the rightful owner of the locomotive, and what the legal effects of the loan agreement.

While technically "everything has a price" most museums do not (and as a practice should not) sell their artifacts, except on rare occasions. If you recall, there was some extensive discussion when VMT sold the NKP 2-8-4 to the then-Ohio Central steam program. If I remember correctly, the controversy was that the proceeds from the sale were not going to develop the collection, but cover revenue shortfalls. To say it happened once isn't a good enough reason to say it will happen again, or even that it should happen. The auction at the Henry Ford a number of years ago also comes to mind as a sale. Given the fact that one of the wooden baggage cars ended up as a power tool showroom in the New Jersey shows that such sales are probably not in the best interest of the artifacts. Most times, museums should not sell artifacts, but make them available to "qualified preservation organizations" either for free, or for some sort of in-kind trade (think of the CN 4-6-2 that Steamtown traded to TVRM for some wheel work).

In the end, the whole 952 saga is a good example of how one needs to be careful when you loan equipment out. To be fair, the 952 was at MOT for nearly 30 years before the R&LHS began to demand its return in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The R&LHS, if the court record is to be believed, then waited until 2004 to file a suit to bring it back, and thus blew the statute of limitations. In the end, it appears as if R&LHS should have pursued their legal options earlier had they hoped to prevail. The lesson here is to consult your organization's legal counsel early on if there is a disagreement in regard to the ownership/custody of an artifact. If you wait, even if you have a meritorious claim, you may blow the statute of limitations in effect for your jurisdiction. Even if it isn’t over, the 952 sits safely under cover, in very nice cosmetic shape until this is all sorted out.

EDIT -- Some Additional Thoughts

At the end of the day, I imagine the R&LHS chapher has spent a lot of money on this litigation. Lawyers are not cheap, as I should know. If they appeal, it will cost more $$. All of this makes me wonder if the chapter had spent a fraction of the money on the litigation on there Delaware Water Gap station progject, or supporting the efforts to cosmetically restore the DL&W 2-6-0 at steamtown, what could have been accomplished. As an attorney, one of my hardest jobs is managing client expectations. Sometimes you have clients that think you can deliver the moon to them, when it isn't in the cards. Putting my bias aside, I would not like to be the R&LHS attorney sitting down with their clients to discuss this case.

I essentially agree with Mr. Wilkins comments. My personal hope ( strictly personal!) is that the folks at the R&LHS chapter will accept this verdict as the final chapter in this long saga?? Based on the history of the issue to date, that's probably not going to be the case, and another appeal will probably be persued??

As Mr. Wilkins points out there is a silver lining to this whole story. Until the R&LHS folks started making serious demands for the return of their locomotive she sat far off in the back lot, totally neglected with tree sapplings growing through her running boards. Subsequent to all this, she's been at least cosmetically restored to respectful condition and now occupies an appropriate resting/exhibit place. So, however you view the merits of the R&LHS action some real good came of it!!

Strictly IMHO the lesson here is....if you enter into a long term "loan" of an artifact make sure you're capable of living up to both the letter and the spirit of the stipulations that go along with that loan, while that artifact is under your care,custody and control. The 952 matter never progressed to the point where these issues of fact were ajudicated due to the legal technicalities that so far have ruled the case...but IMHO if they had been heard the MOT would have had a very difficult time explaining the years that the 952 was allowed to deteriorate on the back lot???

Anyway, the 952 is now in at least respectfully decent shape, and for that I'm pleased.

Ross Rowland

Just for the record, the legal disupte was never centered on "MOT isn't taking care of the locomotive." The dispute was R&LHS saying "We own it, and want it back." While the R&LHS group included accusations of the failure to care for the locomotive in their legal documents, these allegations were more of a salacious nature, and not really at the heart of the legal dispute.

Part of the problem is that there was not apparently a detailed written agreement regarding the care, custody and control of the 952. The 952 came to St. Louis in the days of those Mad-Men style 2 martini lunches and handshake deals. As such, I doubt there were conditions in regard to the actual condition of the locomotive. However, in today's world, not including such conditions in any loan agreement would not be a good idea.

Also, for the record, here is a link to a photo from the Hicks Car Works site of the 952, taken in 1999. Besides the fake plywood cab applied by the DL&W to "backdate" the locomotive, it really don't look too terrible from this distance. It certainly looks a lot better than the locomotives in Scranton that are outside.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YGfyS0_koOE/SIpPxZ5_tII/AAAAAAAAA7M/dMWBuVvAG1I/s1600-h/952-2.JPG