One thought that has gone unchallenged through this disscussion of 952 is that MOT neglected this engine, which suggests it was treated differently than the rest of the collection's locomotives. In fact all of them were treated the same way for all the years that there was no overhead cover for engines at MOT. That would be until 1981-82 when the Abbott Building was erected. This is a steel framed shed over three tracks that measures 380 ft. by 47 ft. So 952 and everything else sat in the open (with a few exceptions placed in the tunnel or under a one-item shed) from the time they arrived until this provided cover for a small portion of the collection. All the efforts to get funding for buildings up to this point had failed, despite good faith efforts. One earlier building was a pole barn put up in 1969-70. This was meant for the streetcars in the collection, which were in far worse shape than the more durable locomotives. But it wound up being used for the automotive and other items even more threatened by exposure. In the early 1990s two more structures were built using county funds, a fully enclosed 70 ft. by 200 ft. one used to house the electric cars and the 480 ft. by 120 ft Roberts Building, which is also a shed over eight tracks at one end and six at the other with a visitor walkway occupying the other two track spaces. 952 was not singled out for poor treatment, just suffered the same as everything else from its arrival until there was any shelter available. But by then it had been placed in a location that made it very hard to move due to all the items on the same track behind it. I won't go into the reasons for its placement, just say that they turned out to be unfortunate in hindsight. And the Abbott Building would not have fit in the space 952 occupied due to the lay o f the land, not to mention that it had to be used to protect as many items as possible. I was on the team that spent several months working to remove everything and rebuild the track as we went until 952 was moved. Every one of them derailed at least once, making it something of an epic, but that is just a small part of the story.

Gentlemen, I will certainly pass on mr. adm4's ramblings and so's admonitions to Mr. Deep Pockets for his serious consideration as he doesn't own a computer ( just lots of bank accounts which have balances containing lots of zero$$$$$$$$'s!

I'm sure he'll be interested to recieve those bits of foamer wisdom!!

Ross Rowland

Ross, who is this Deep Pockets? As he/she isn't shy about doing public legal filings I presume he/she doesn't mind his/her name being publicized? Or am I wrong about that?

Chris.

It's too bad Doc Roberts isn't around and coherent. I remember the subject of the 952 being talked about back then and the term "Permanent Loan" surfaced.
The only thing I've seen come from this long winded thread is that Al Gore is alarmed at the carbon footprint getting larger up east.
My big brother is gonna kick your butt! Is not, is too, neener neener neener.
Meanwhile 952 langusihes in the Missouri sunshine.

Yes, ctjacks you are wrong. In the 40 plus years I've been his close friend he has never made his identity known to any but a VERY FEW close confidants.

He actively supports MANY steam endevaours anonymously. He has had a lifelong affinity for the DL&W in general and the 952 in particular. He was incensed by the awful condition that he found the 952 in during a 1990's visit to the MOT and that's the spark that lite this fire!!

Sad but true!!

Ross Rowland

I wonder, when the MOT refused the R&LHS request to return the locomotive, could the R&LHS then have made the offer to come down to the MOT and begin working on the locomotive? Imagine if they had spent their money that way instead of on lawsuits.

The individual responsible for the lawsuits has remained anonymous... At least on this board we need to accept this.

We also need to accept that litigation continues... and that not all litigation is rational.

The topic is not locked, or limited.. but needs to move past position statements. Please....

Your friendly moderator, Randy

Several years ago, in a different career-I worked with a couple of corporate lawyers who specialized in employee benefits. One actually started his career with the ICC and a certain Southern RR (was actually hired by the late Jim Bistline)

I learned a lot from these fellows, but the most important thing was "the law is about equity, not justice" with an adjunct thought that the former is often a poor approximation of the latter.

Then again, possession is 9/10 of the law.

In reflecting upon my recent introduction to base ball a la 1860s, can you imagine what a play-by-play account during a game between the St. Louis Horses and the Pennsylvania Camels would have sounded like during a play where a Camel runner was stealing second and the Horses behind overthrows the second tender?

Who's on second, Abbott?

Not to stir up bad blood, but if a prior court has determined that R&LHS is indeed the legal owner, and the argument is only over wether or not MOT will release the engine, what is to prevent them from just going out there and taking it?

Even if they involve law enforcement, if provided with a legal document that MOT is not the legal owner, wouldn't they be forced to release the engine, and leave it up to the courts to decide afterward? MOT will certainly seek an immediate injunction, which will no doubt be upheld by a St. Louis court, but then the case will actually be tried on it's merits.

If the engine is somehow blocked in and can't be removed, what is to stop R&LHS members from removing parts from the engine?

And lastly, if R&LHS is indeed the legal and rightful owner, what is to prevent them from selling the engine to, for example, Steamtown, and then have Steamtown file for release of the engine, since a new owner would restart the clock on litigation, wouldn't it?

Again, not to stir up any (more) trouble, but the outcome of this case will certainly cause many in the museum world to take a long, hard look at "long term loans," and could cause private owners to choose not to display their pieces for fear of losing possession.

Arrrgh!

The court said nothing of the kind. All the courts said was that whatever their problem was, the R&LHS waited too long to seek a remedy. Period. End of story. And, anyone who thinks the Supreme Court is going to take a case that stands to overrule decades of Statue of Limitations precedent is dreaming. The R&LHS has no claim to ownership because they effectively abandoned that claim years ago.




As well they should, but few museums have any options anyway. Most things that are on "long term loan" have effectively been given away, as this case proves. If there is no written agreement, and the men who made the original agreement are beyond testifying to what was agreed upon, the "lender" has very little to base his claim upon. Likewise, if there is a written agreement that is being breached, the injured party only has a limited time to seek remedy, or they effectively abandon their claim, which is what happened here.

Even if the courts specifically rule that the Pennsylvania organization is the owner (was there any dispute of that?), the St. Louis organization still has the right to posses it. The present case seems to concern if the St. Louis organization's somewhat permanent possession of the locomotive can be canceled too long after a possible reason for cancellation possibly happened.
R&LHS chapter owns the locomotive, MOT has the right to keep it, and a nasty legal fight has followed!

Any updates?

Same as always:

(Edit) My usual disclaimer. I don't speak an an official or unofficial capacity for St. Louis County, the Museum of Transportation, the Transportation Museum Association, current and/or former employers, or any other group and organization. I speak for myself, my opinions are my own. Also, I normally practice in state court, so I had to look a few things up. "Hey, these books behind my desk have all kinds of useful legal information in them!" (/Edit)


Well, for those of you playing at home, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion in the case has been selected for the Federal Reporter. There was also a short blub about the case in an issue of Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The official citation is:

Lackawana Chapter of the Ry. & Locomotive Historical Society, Inc. v. St. Louis County, 606 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2010).

The opinon was filed on June 2, 2010. The Chapter (loosing party) filed a motion requesting that the 3 judge panel re-hear their appeal, or that the entire bench of the 8th Circuit hear the appeal. Both motions were denied on July 15, 2010. The Court's ruling on June 2, 2010 is also the Court's entry of final judgment in the matter. According to Supreme Court rules, the party requesting review by the U.S. Supreme Court has 90 days from the date of final judgment to file the request. A quick search on Westlaw shows that no such request for discretionary review has been filed. As such, it appears, at the very least, that this issue may be finished. However, I normally do not practice in federal court, and as such, the final judgment may have been stayed by the request for re-hearing. As such, time may run out on October 15, 2010.

If there is time left, please see my previous posts regarding the chances of any case being heard by the Supreme Court are slim to none. Also, some on this board hoped that the Supreme Court would simply re-try the case. I blame these posts on the poor state of civics education in this country. The only issue the Supreme Court would hear is whether the Circuit Court (court of appeals) erred when it affirmed the ruling of the District Court (trial court). Since the case involves the fairly non-contriversial issue of Missouri's statute of limitations, the chances of the Supreme Court hearing the appear are about even less than the chances of seeing steam on the Greenbriar Express anytime in the next few years.

As an interesting note, a quick check of PACER the Federal Court on-line filing system shows that a Mr. John R. Connor, who is not an attorney, tried, as a "friend of the court" file another motion for re-hearing in the matter. Don't know who he is, or why he was acting alone. The court denied all of his motions. More importantly, since the issue appears to be settled, I'm not willing to pay to view the whole docket sheet (insert beating dead horse animation here).

David M. Wilkins
Appellate Practice, Missouri