William Mitchell Opinion – Volume 7, No. 1, Dec. 1964

Robert W. Rahn - Editor

John E. McKendrick - Associate Editor

Alvin J. Remmenga - Technical Editor

Gary Phleger, Manager; Art Hager, Photographer; James Conway, Jerry Regnier – Production Staff

Allan Mulligan, D. Wayne Snyder, editorials; James Basett, John Brandt, Bruce Christopherson, Tom Clifford, Carolyn Cochrane, James Conway, Ron Erickson, Tom Foley, Lee Fossum, Bill Glew, John Hoffman, Ed Kappus, Tom McLeod, Jack Mitchell, David Simecek, Bill Somerness - Writers

Published semi-annually by the Student Bar Association of William Mitchell College of Law, 2100 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55105.

Law School Enriched by Gifts From Jurists Sanborn, Nelson by Carolyn Cochrane

Conspicuous among numerous additions to the physical plant at William Mitchell in recent months is a gift of over 3,000 law books from the estate of the late John Sanborn, renowned judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Included in the gift to the library, which has been named after Judge Sanborn, are sets of Corpus Juris Secundum, American Jurisprudence, Minnesota Statutes Annotated, United States Code Annotated, Federal Reporter Second Series, United States Reports, Modern Federal Practice Digest, and various other sets including Roscoe Pound’s Jurisprudence. Also granted to the library are the records and briefs heard by Judge Sanborn in his many years on the federal bench.

The library is also the fortunate recipient of a number of books from Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Marin Nelson, an alumnus of our school. His gift consists of volumes on legal histories and philosophies. Included are two sets of Blackstone’s works.

Justice Nelson has also presented to the College a steel engraving of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, picturing Abraham Lincoln and those of his cabinet officers who were present for that historic moment.

Formerly hung in Justice Nelson’s law office, it was later removed to the court house in Austin, Minnesota, where it remained for many years. It was presented to William Mitchell this past summer.

Bar Exam Results by Tom Clifford

The results of the July, 1964 bar exam were published in October. Of 223 applicants, 77 were William Mitchell graduates, including 68 from the Class of 1964.

Two hundred and ten of the 223 taking the exam passed. Of 13 failures, only four were from William Mitchell, and only one of the four was from the Class of 1964, the remaining three being graduates from prior years. The percentage success for William Mitchell examinees was 94.8%.

In the bar exam taken last March, all William Mitchell applicants passed.

Image This year's seniors enjoy added realism in moot court due to remodeling of room 103, including oak paneling, red drapery behind bench, and elevated witness and jury boxes.

$50,000 Student Loan Fund Set Up by William Glew

Loans to cover the cost of tuition and books are now available to William Mitchell College of Law students at a moderate interest rate.

A substantial guaranty fund established by the Alumni Association has made it possible for the college to inaugurate this loan program in cooperation with the First National Bank of St. Paul.

A credit of $50,000 has been made available to finance these loans.

The maximum amount which a student may borrow per year is i$600, and the aggregate total which may be borrowed during a student’s law school career is $2,000.

Interest is charged at the rate of 5% compounded annually during the years a student is in school, but no payments are required during this time.

Beginning May 1 of the year of the student's graduation interest will be charged at the rate of 6 1/2% per annum on the entire debt. Repayment must begin no later than December 1 of the year of graduation and must be completed within four years after that date.

Because of the substantial size of the guaranty fund, the bank was able to permit the college to adopt an unusually flexible policy of administering the loan program.

Loans may be advanced to first year students as well as upper classmen, and the college is able to exercise considerable discretion in the application of academic standards to determine eligibility for loans.

As of October 8, 1964, eighteen loans totaling $9,726 had been made to students. Three loans were made to first year students, two to second year students, four to third year students and nine to fourth year students.

Hill Foundation Grants $119,000 For Professorship by Lee L. Fossum

A grant of $119,000 to endow a professorship in Corporation Law at William Mitchell College of Law has been announced by the Louis W. and Maude Hill Foundation of St. Paul.

Announcement of the grant came in July of this year, accompanied by a statement on behalf of the Foundation citing William Mitchell as an outstanding professional school, which has produced many outstanding members of the legal profession.”

The grant will formally establish the "Louis W. Hill professorship in Corporate Law," and will make possible an addition to the full-time faculty.

Mr. Reginald K. Ames, the present instructor in Corporation Law, will continue to teach during the current year on a part-time basis. His successor, not yet named, will assume a full-time position teaching Corporate Law and related subjects. The possibility of expanding the range of corporate study by conducting seminars has also been discussed.

Dean Heidenreich, in commenting on the grant, noted that it was the first of its kind ever received by the College. With regard to the study of Corporation Law, he further stated that the grant "evidences a recognition on the part of the Foundation of the importance of this phase of legal education."

In its meeting of September 2nd the William Mitchell Board of Trustees passed a resolution accepting the grant, at the same time expressing appreciation to the Hill Foundation.

Largely responsible for acquiring this recognition by the Foundation is Mr. Harry Holtz, who is President of the First Trust Co. of St. Paul and a 1943 alumnus of the College. He was the first to contact the Hill Foundation and invite support for the school's programs.

Opinion Receives Second ALSA Award by Ronald E. Erickson

For the second time since its inception in 1959, the Opinion has been awarded a second place certificate in the American Law Student Association student newspaper competition. Announcement came on August 15th of this year, four years after the first award was granted.

Competition is keen, with more than 90 law schools submitting entries each spring. Entries consist essentially of copies of the fall and spring issues and a statement describing the staff organization.

Factors considered in making-the annual awards are the attention given student bar activities, organized bar activities, and the degree of faculty assistance utilized.

The award to the Opinion is significant because many of the contestants are full-time day schools, whereas William Mitchell's students publish on a part-time basis. Another factor is faculty assistance. Although the faculty is available if needed, the Opinion is published entirely by students.

DRIVE BEGUN LAST MAY – Mortgage Debt Greatly Reduced by James Conway

Responding to a fund-raising drive launched May 28 and headed by former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger L. Dell, some 96 alumni, corporations, foundations, law firms and interested individuals have pledged over $75,000 to date in a stepped-up effort to retire the mortgage on the William Mitchell Building.

"Had we continued to pay on the mortgage in the usual fashion," explained Dean Douglas Heidenreich, "it would have taken nine more years to eliminate it." As a result of the drive the balance owing on the

15-year mortgage held by Minnesota Federal Savings and Loan has been brought to about one-third its original balance.

There has been a large group of Mitchell supporters. Harry Holtz, 1943 alumnus and president of the First Trust Company of St. Paul; Lee Slater, president of West Publishing Company, St. Paul; and Charles Murnane, a 1937 graduate and current president of the Minnesota state Bar Association, have been active in soliciting through both personal contact and correspondence.

Equally active fund raisers so far have been Minneapolis attorneys Harold J. Carroll, a 1923 graduate; Burr B. Markham, an alumnus of 1941; and St. Paul attorney Richard E. Klein, a 1949 graduate.

Among numerous out-of-town attorneys contributing time and effort to drive are Clem Ryan, Brainerd lawyer, class of 1920, and Leo Seifert, a Fairmont attorney and 1916 graduate.

Contributors of $1,000 or more to date are as follows: American National Bank; W. P. Berghuis; F. R.

Bigelow Foundation; Otto Bremer Foundation: Briggs & Morgan; Harold J. Carroll; Carl W. Cummins; Hon. Roger L. Dell; William H. Depareq; Doherty, Rumble & Butler; First National Bank of St. Paul; First Trust Company of St. Paul; J.B. Gallagher; Great Northern Railway Foundation; the Hamm Foundation, Inc.; Margaret H. and James E. Kelley Foundation, Inc.; Warren B. King; Paul J. McGough; McKnight Foundation; Burr B. Markham; Maun, Hazel, Green, Hayes, Simon & Aretz; The Minneapolis Clearing House Association; Minnesota Mutual Foundation, Inc.; Murnane, Murnane, Battis & deLambert; Northwestern National Bank of St. Paul; Oppenheimer, Hodgson, Brown, Wolff & Leach; Clem A. Ryan; Ryan, Ryan & Ebert; The Tozer Foundation, Inc.’ Waldorf Paper Products Company; West Publishing Company; Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Foundation; John L. Connolly; and Bush Foundation.

Image Dell, Holtz, and Slater

EDITORIALS Mob Rule and the NFO The recent “holding action” of the National Farmers’ Organization (NFO) has raised some questions which should be of special interest to law students.

The basic conflict seems to be between a desire for public demonstrations on the part of the NFO members and the necessity for maintaining a free flow of traffic on public roads and streets on the part of the state. Since the state’s police power to supervise and control assemblies and demonstrations on public thoroughfares is well settled, many NFO members feel that the scales of justice are weighted against them.

Law enforcement officials have no alternative but to insist upon strict compliance with the laws governing demonstrations and traffic. The First Amendment's “right of the people peaceably to assemble' w· obviously not meant to protect the vicious, rowdy mobs recently seen on rural roads and at stock terminals in this area. These gathering were blatantly unlawful and the police officers involved are to be commend d for their courage in controlling these groups in the face of great pressure and even physical injury.

On the other hand, no one can deny the crucial economic squeeze in which many American farmers, particularly cattle raiser, find themselves at this time. Further, no one can justifiably deny the farmer’s right to attempt to bargain collectively with the processors who buy his products. As a seller of goods he deserves every economic advantage which he can lawfully gain in today’s market place. But there is no justification for the threats, coercion and the violence which have recently been aimed at those who actively disagree with the NFO’s aims.

The holding action has now been abated. We sincerely hope that before it is resumed, the NFO will establish effective intra-organizational disciplinary procedures to prevent future damage to the property and rights of other persons. The basic premises of the NFO are a refreshing display of individual economic incentive; the organization should not allow the mob tactic of some of its member to destroy these.

-A.E.M.

Law Apprenticeships An apprenticeship program for young lawyers? Such a plan has been proposed by many, lawyers and laymen alike.

A few states have experimented with the idea, but not successfully. By and large it was determined that lawyers are neither equipped nor prepared to give young law graduates the kind of training and close supervision they need.

However, the need for more adequate training in the techniques of practice is certain. At the present time, a young lawyer begins practice, of necessity, with the intent to learn how to be a practicing attorney, rather than an intent to “dig right in” on problem solving. In most cases, he can’t: He isn’t ready. This would seem to suggest a solid bases for an apprenticeship program.

Many law schools, including William Mitchell, have embarked on a Moot Court program in addition to courses in civil Procedure, Legal Research, Legal Writing, Evidence, and Legal Drafting. This is a good start. Is it enough? The answer is not to be found in this editorial, as it only raises the problem. It is up to you and me to determine the solution.

-D.W.

PROGRAM IN THIRD YEAR – ALSA Sparks Individual Membership by John Hoffman

The American Law Student Association (ALSA), national student affiliate of the American Bar Association, has begun the third year of its Individual Membership Program, designed to foster a spirit of professionalism.

Services of the program are provided for individual members exclusively, though the program itself is by no means an exclusive one. It is open to any law student in good standing who is a member of the local student bar association. At William Mitchell, the association encompasses all students by virtue of the fee paid each semester.

The program’s purposes are threefold: To acquaint law students with the value of organized bar participation; to strengthen local bar programs; and to provide services outside the scope of the local student bar organization.

Prior to 1962, the American Law Student Association consisted solely of constituent member associations, making any direct contact with individual students impossible. This was remedied following a year of careful study by an Executive Committee appointed in 1960.

Their recommendations were adopted in the form of amendments to the ALSA Constitution. The following year the necessary administrative details were similarly adopted and the entire program was ratified and put into effect in the Fall of 1932.

In establishing the program, the organization was cognizant of the prerogatives of local student bar associations. This Program provides only those services which are beyond the scope of the local organization and which will result in promoting the aims of the ALSA.

Distaff Staff Miss Ethel Kommes, our new instructor in Legal Research, is also librarian at the Hennepin County Law Library. She has previously been assistant librarian of the University of Minnesota at Duluth, and assistant librarian, Minnesota State Law Library. In addition, she has been a teacher of high school English, and taught at our school from 1953 to 1958.

Miss Kommes received her B.E. Magna cum laude from Superior State College, Wisconsin, and a Ph.M. from the University of Wisconsin. She did graduate work in Law Library Administration at Columbia University, and received an LL.B. cum laude from William Mitchell in 1953. She was admitted to the Minnesota Bar in the same year.

Miss Lois Greiner joined the staff in June of this year as office secretary. A native of North Dakota, she began her career there as an English teacher and later taught in Minnesota. Her next position was with Midway Employment Service in St. Paul. For the past nine and one-half years she has been public relations director for the Minnesota State Bar Association and editor of Bench & Bar magazine.

After graduating from the University of North Dakota, she did graduate work at Northwestern University at Evanston and at Mills College, Oakland, California. Miss Greiner, who not lives in St. Paul, may best be described as a charmingly modest person who is always anxious to help not only the staff but also any student who has occasion to call upon her for assistance.

Miss Carol C. Gordon, our new librarian, comes to use from Cleveland, Ohio. A 1960 graduate of Ohio State University, she received her LL.B. from the law school of that university in 1963, and was admitted to the Ohio bar the same year.

She was Law Librarian at Thompson, Hine & Flory, Cleveland, before coming to William Mitchell.

In Memoriam Our halls were a little darker and our classes a little smaller when this school year commenced. We are certain that this can only be attributed to the absence of our sadly missed classmate, J. Michael Kelly, whose life was so abruptly ended in a tragic accident this summer.

We shall never forget Mike's wit and his ever-present smile that reflected his true character and love of life. Those who did not have the privilege of meeting him can never know how capable and influential he was.

To honor his memory a memorial has been established by his classmates. This memorial has taken the form of a loan fund which will be available to needy students in our school. Each year this memorial bearing his name will appear in the Bulletin which is published by the school.

The overwhelming student response to the establishment of the memorial serves to testify to the number of friends Mike had. We shall always remember his many fine qualities with the hope that they may better our lives. May God rest his soul.

Dicta – BY THE DEAN The 1964-65 school year has already seen some important changes in our faculty. We have found a capable librarian and we have made some changes in our part-time faculty.

The addition of Carol Gordon to our staff gives us a librarian who will bring to William Mitchell a good, solid legal education, experience in the law library field, and the enthusiasm which the job requires. Under Miss Gordon’s guidance, we hope to initiate a thorough study of our library’s needs and a program of improvement.

Several members of the part-time faculty have found it necessary to leave because of other duties. Solomon Isenstein, who served for two years as our administrative law instructor, was called back to Washington, D.C. as assistant general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We lost David White, our fine labor law instructor, who found that the duties of private practice left him no time for teaching. Roger Schnobrich, who had been teaching legal accounting, came to the same conclusion. Fortunately, we have been able to find excellent people to fill the gaps left by these men. Robert Lauck, general counsel for Remington Rand Univac, will be taking over the course in administrative law; David Doty, and experienced labor lawyer, will teach the course in labor law; Richard Larson, an outstanding teacher and practitioner, will teach the course in legal accounting.

The fact that we are able to obtain such outstanding men to teach these important courses has caused me to reflect upon the most important asset which William Mitchell possesses: the friendship and good will of the members of the bench and bar of the Twin Cities and the entire state. A list of the ways in which the friendship and good will have been manifested over the past years would be nearly interminable. Our professional responsibility course which calls for the services of fifteen of the outstanding lawyers and judges of the community as speakers and planners is an example that comes to mind. Another is our moot court program which this year will again find some of the nation’s finest judges and trial lawyers making appearances to act as judges and to share with our students their knowledge and experiences.

A striking example of this cooperation and enthusiasm is our mortgage drive. On May 28 of this year, a dinner meeting was held at the request of Hon. Roger L. Dell, former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court and one of this school’s outstanding alumni. Judge Dell felt that although the school is on a firm financial footing, money now being spent for mortgage payments could be better used in other ways. Therefore, he called together a group of people who he felt might be interested in the school building. The response was enthusiastic. Committees were immediately formed and work began.

In a period of less than six months, these men have succeeded in cutting the mortgage balance to one-third of its original amount. Substantial donations have been received from banks, corporations, and foundations as well as alumni and others who expressed an interest in legal education in Minnesota. It now appears that with a little more effort the entire mortgage will be eliminated within a short time. This will free money now being used to make mortgage payments for strengthening the full time faculty, improving the library and other important uses. Donors to this drive can be proud of the fact that they have made a real contribution to the progress of legal education.

This tremendous response has pointed up the fact that without the interest and cooperation of our friends throughout the state, William Mitchell could not operate. The success of our scholarship fund, our loan fund, our mortgage drive, and countless other programs is due to this interest and cooperation. Indeed, the success of the entire operation is dependent on the support of members of the legal profession and others who recognize that legal education is important not only to the legal profession but to the community as a whole. Since Dean Curtis left it has been my pleasure to work with these find people every day. To all of them go my sincere gratitude and my request for their continuing cooperation and good will.

Continuing Definition of the Scope of FELA (article contains footnotes)

by Sam Hanson

About the Author Sam Hanson, 25, is a senior student at William Mitchell. He has a B.A. degree in History and Economics from St. Olaf College, and is presently employed as Librarian in the Court of Appeals Library. Previously, he has been Deputy clerk of District Court, and Realty Assistant for the Department of Interior. He and his wife live in St. Paul.

Under the common law an employer was able to insulate himself from the cost of human overhead by asserting against the claims of his injured employees the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and the fellow servant doctrine. As a result, the greater proportion of industrial accidents remained uncompensated. The burden of industrial injury fell upon the injured workman, who was lease able to bear it.

In 1908, Congress enacted the Federal Employers’ Liability Act1 (FELA) in recognition of the inequity of the common law as it applied to the injury-laden railroad industry.2 That Act and its subsequent amendments stripped the employer of his common law defenses. It dealt specifically with the fellow servant doctrine by making the railroad liable for injury to or death of its employees when “resulting in the whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees”3 of such railroad. (Emphasis added.)

As is often the case with relief legislation, this act gave rise to a constant flow of litigation seeking to define the scope of its application and the extent to which it modifies common law solutions to the problems inherent in the employer-employee relationship. The continuing nature of this process of definition was demonstrated by the recent case of Payne v. Baltimore & O.R.R.4

In the Payne case, the defendant railroad attempted to use the FELA as a shield from liability. The defendant took the position that the clear language of the Act, basing liability upon the negligence of

the railroad’s “officers, agents, or employees,” necessarily excluded from its scope the common law concept of an employer’s vicarious liability for the negligence of a vice-principal who was not an “officer, agent, or employee.” At common law, an employer was vicariously liable for the negligence of a vice-principal to whom the performance of a non-delegable duty of care had been delegated, whether that vice-principal was a servant or an independent contractor.5

The facts out of which this issue arose are easily stated. The defendant, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, had an agreement whereby it was allowed to use a spur track owned by the Standard Ultramarien & Color Co. (SUCO). Under the terms of the agreement the duty of maintaining the condition of the track, as between the defendant and SUCO, was upon SUCO.

It was the usual practice of SUCO, a manufacturer of chemicals and dyestuffs, to collect ash disposals by a dump truck from its ash silo located in stilts directly above the spur track. In the process of making this collection, SUCO frequently spilled ashes onto the track. SUCO undertook to keep the rail area free of the spilled ash but paid no attention to the accumulation of ashes between the rails. The ashes between the rails thus became crowned higher than the rails and could have gotten onto the rails as the result of a rain washing them there.

At daybreak on July 2, 1962 the defendant’s boxcar, carrying an employee named Ralph T. Payne, entered the spur track. As the car backed over that portion of the track containing the ash accumulation, it was derailed and collided with the wall of an adjacent factory building. Payne fell from the car and was pinned between it and the building the impact caused his instant death.

Plaintiff, Payne’s administratrix, brought an action in United States District Court against the defendant to recover damages under the FELA. The defendant admitted that the cause of the derailment and resulting death of Payne was the negligence of SUCO, but denied liability for this negligence on the ground that SUCO was not an “officer, agent, or employee” of the defendant.

The trial court sent the case to the jury with an instruction that it might find the defendant liable on one of two separate bases: First that liability might be based upon the independent negligence of the defendant in sending the boxcar on a track having a dangerous condition if the defendant had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition: Or, second, that even in the absence of independent negligence, liability might be based upon the admitted negligence of SUCO which was imputable to the defendant. This latter instruction had the effect of a directed verdict for the plaintiff. A verdict for the plaintiff followed, in the amount of $136,267.23 plus costs. The defendant, appealing from the judgment, asserted that the instruction of the trial court was error.

In deciding this appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was required to define one aspect of the scope of the FELA. In order to uphold the judgment, the court had to find that the liability of the defendant under the FELA could be based on the imputed negligence of SUCO. It was not enough for the court to find sufficient evidence of the independent negligence of the defendant, as the trial court had instructed that liability could be found, even in the absence of such evidence, by the imputation of the admitted negligence of SUCO.

In order to better understand the problem facing the court in deciding this appeal, it may be instructive to review briefly the development of the FELA and the position of this case within that development.

Prior to the enactment of the FELA, the liability of a railroad to its employees for work injuries was incident to the contractual relationship of master and servant. Once that relationship was established, the law attached to it certain duties, for the breach of which an action would lie in tort. Despite the emphasis placed on the contractual nature of the relationship, the scope of the duties was fixed largely by considerations of industrial conditions, social policy, and the then prevailing attitudes toward labor.6

In recognition of the fact that the operation of a railroad, with its inherent dangers, was essential to the development of American industry, the early law limited the responsibility of the railroad to specific minimum obligations. In the performance of these obligations, the railroad was not the insurer of the employees’ safety, but was liable only for the failure to exercise due care. However, certain of the obligations where characterized as being non-delegable, meaning not that they could not be delegated, but that when they were delegated, the negligence of the performing party would be imputed to the employer.7

As to the minimum obligations, the railroad’s responsibility was further limited by the defenses of assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and the fellow servant doctrine. These defenses were founded on the economic theories of complete mobility of labor, unlimited supply of work and complete freedom of a workman to enter into the employment of his choice.8

In response to increasing demand for more protection of injured railroad employees and their families, Congress enacted the FELA. The purpose of this act was to promote “the welfare of both employer and employee, by adjusting the losses and injuries inseparable from industry and commerce to the strength of those who in the nature of the case ought to share the burden.”9 This purpose was not to be accomplished by a new basis of liability. Liability was still to be based upon negligence. The purpose was to be accomplished, rather, by giving to the employee a remedy free of the harsh defenses that had grown up in the common law to protect the railroad and to encourage the expansion of industry. The act abolished the fellow-servant doctrine,10 substituted comparative negligence for the absolute defense of contributory negligence,11 and abolished the defense of assumption of risks in cases involving violations of the Safety Appliance Acts.12 The defense of assumption of risk was totally abolished by a later amendment.13

The Act did not define the duties of the railroad nor the consequences of delegating them.

From 1908 to the present, the development of tort law with respect to work injuries of railroad employees has been largely confined to the development of the FELA. Workmen’s compensation laws arose subsequent to the FELA and generally excluded railroad employees from their coverage because of the existing remedy provided by the FELA. In contrast to the approach taken by the FELA, workmen’s compensation laws normally adopted a system of social insurance; liability of the employer for work-connected injuries is absolute, not based on negligence. On the other hand, the recovery allowed under workmen’s compensation laws is limited in amount, whereas the FELA places no limit on damages.14

The contrast of the workmen’s compensation laws has certainly had an effect on the development of the FELA. The soundness of a compensation system based on a negligence concept has been continually questioned. While Congress has not seen fit to change the bases of liability under the FELA, the Supreme Court has been active in molding the Act to fit changing conditions in society, seemingly moving it closer to the approach of workmen’s compensation laws. Justice Frankfurter, dissenting in Stone v. New York, C. & St. L. R.R., captured the mood of the development of the FELA when he stated: “I deplore this basis

of liability because of the injustices and credulities inherent in applying the common law concept of negligence to railroading. To fit the hazards of railroad employment into the requirements of negligence actions is to employ a wholly inappropriate procedure – a procedure adequate to the simple situations for which it was adopted but brutally unfit for the situations to which the FELA requires it be put. The result is a matter of common knowledge. Under the guise of suits for negligence, the distortions of the Act’s application have turned it more and more into a workmen’s compensation act.”15

The “Distortions” of which Justice Frankfurter speaks generally take one of two forms. On the one hand the language of the Act itself is liberally construed. For example, the Court has held that an “accommodating scope” must be given to the word “agent” in order to fulfill the broad purpose of the FELA. 16 In Urie v. Thompson17 the court held that the coverage of the Act is not confined to injuries resulting from accidents but included also injuries in the nature of occupational diseases.

More significant than the expansion of the Act through liberal construction, however, are the Supreme Court’s rulings on questions of the sufficiency of the evidence to support verdicts under the FELA. The trend of Supreme Court cases has been to consistently enlarge the role of the jury in deciding fact issues, particularly in relation to questions of negligence and causation.18 The Court has said that it is only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support eh jury’s conclusion that the trial court is justified in setting aside that conclusion.19 In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to present a jury question, the trial court is cautioned to look only to the evidence which tends to support the position of the plaintiff. 20

With this background in mind, it now becomes clear that the Court of Appeals in the Payne case was not confronted with a simple application of the language of the FELA to the fact situation. That court was surely aware that the Supreme Court would require it to go beyond the confines of the statutory language to the purpose of the FELA, and thus to define that language in a manner consistent with its purpose.

In so doing, the court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, with one judge dissenting. It held that the verdict could be sustained by either of two tests, saying “(i)f the jury found liability by virtue of the defendant’s independent negligence in sending the boxcar on a track having a dangerous condition which could have been foreseen, the verdict is sound.”21

The second basis for the verdict was the imputed negligence of SUCO. As to this, the court said: “If it (the jury) found liability by virtue of imputing the negligence of SUCO to defendant, based on defendant’s non-delegable duty regarding the safety for its employees, the verdict is sound. Regardless of the rights between themselves of the defendant and SUCO, defendant may not legally delegate to another its duty to its employee, and thereby escape liability to such employee. This is the basis for the FELA. If the defendant does delegate and relies upon the services of its agent to carry out its own duty, it may not shift its liability from itself to said agent when the employee seeks to hold it directly liable. Under the FELA the employer is the one owing the duty to the employee. The Employee need not look elsewhere for his protection. He has a right under FELO to rely on his employer and none other. When the employer delegates its duty, or abdicates control, the employer takes the risk and not the employee.”22

What the court decided is not entirely clear from the language used: It did not see fit to disclose the considerations that led to its conclusion. The language noted above seems to be susceptible of either of

two interpretations. First, the court may have decided that for the purpose of performing the defendant’s duty, SUCO was an “agent” of the defendant, for whose negligence the FELA made the defendant directly liable. On the other hand, the court may have found that because of the delegation of a non-delegable duty the defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of SUCO. Such a decision would require as its premise a determination that the scope of the FELA is broad enough to encompass the concept of an employer’s vicarious liability for the negligence of a vice-principal who was not an “officer, agent, or employee.”

A starting point in the analysis of the court’s decision is a determination of the nature of the duty owed by defendant to its employer. In finding such a duty, the court was not required to break new ground. The duty arising from the facts of this case is the duty to use due care to provide a safe place for its employees to work. While this duty is not specifically mentioned in the language of the FELA, it was read into the act by the Supreme Court in Bailey v. Central R.R.23 In that case, the court held that such a duty arose under the FELA on the following reasoning: The Act makes the railroad liable for injury or death resulting from the negligence of its officers, agents, or employees; the rights which the Act creates are federal rights, protected by federal rather than local rules of law; those federal rules have been largely fashioned from the common law except as Congress has written different standards into the Act; at common law, the duty of the employer to use reasonable care in furnishing his employees with a safe place to work is plain and deeply rooted in federal jurisprudence.24 The court further characterized this duty as being a continuing one from which the employer is not relieved by the fact that the employee's presence at a place is fleeting or infrequent.25

Subsequent cases made it clear that the employer is not relieved of this duty to provide a safe place to work simply because it does not own or control the premises upon which its employee is sent to work. In Terminal R.R. Ass'n of St. L. v. Fitzjohn26 the railroad's employee was performing his duties as foreman of the switching crew at a plant owned and operated by the United States Government. He was injured when he was knocked off a car by an iron pipe which was placed in a wall adjacent to the track and which extended to within about six inches of the side of the car moving on that track. The court held the railroad liable for the injury to its employee resulting from the unsafe condition of the place where he was required to work.

The court probably decided that SUCO was an "agent" of the defendant as that word is used in the FELA. The court makes use of the term "agents" and places some reliance upon the case of Sinkler v. Missouri Pac. R.R.27 That case, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, concerns itself with the scope of the agency concept as it is applied under the FELA.

In Sinkler, the defendant railroad had delegated its switching operations in the Houston terminal to a separate carrier. Plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was injured as a result of the negligence of the switching crew. The Court determined that the members of the switching crew, all of whom were employees of the separate carrier, were "agents" of the defendant within the meaning of the FELA. The Court stated that in view of the broad purpose of the FELA to make an equitable adjustment of the inescapable expense of human injury in the railroad industry, "an accommodating scope must be given to the word 'agent' to give vitality to the standard governing the liability of carriers to their workers injured on the job."28 The Court held that "when a railroad employee's injury is caused in whole or in part by the fault of others performing, under contract, operational activities of his employer, such others are 'agents' of the employer within the meaning of Para. 1 of the FELA." 29

Judge O'Sullivan, dissenting in the Payne case, argues that even under the accommodating scope to be given the term "agent", no agency can be found in the Payne case because "it was no part of the operational activities of the defendant for SUCO to dump ashes from its silo onto its track."30 Although not an operational activity of the defendant, it is not so clear that the activity of SUCO in maintaining the condition of the spur track was not an operational activity of the defendant. In any event, the Sinkler case did not say that the performance of operational activities would present the only occasion for an accommodating scope of agency under the FELA. That case held, instead, that the broad purpose of the FELA required, in all cases, that an accommodating scope be given to the term "agents," and that those who perform operational activities of the employer are one class included within that scope. In view of the purpose of the FELA to put upon the railroad industry a major portion of the responsibility for the safety of its employees, this accommodating scope could as easily include those to whom the performance of acts required for the employee's safety has been delegated. If this is the holding of the Payne case, it is a proper application of the FELA.

Such a holding would be unnecessary, however, if the court could find that the scope of the FELA encompasses the concept of an employer's vicarious liability for the negligence of a vice-principal who was not an "officer, agent or employee." If this was the decision in the Payne case, it defines the scope of the FELA more broadly than has been done in prior cases.

There are numerous other cases dealing with the railroad's duty, under the FELA, to provide a safe place for its employees to work, despite lack of ownership or control of the premises. None of these cases, however, reach the issue of the railroad's vicarious liability, under the FELA, for the negligence of a third person to whom the railroad has entrusted the performance of this duty. The cases turn, instead, upon the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the independent negligence of the railroad.31

Language supporting such a definition can be seen in two other federal decisions."° Neither of those decisions were concerned directly with the question, however, as they dealt instead with the defendant railroad's claim for indemnity from the vice-principal.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Sinkler v. Missouri Pac. R.R.,33 takes notice of the common law liability of a railroad for the fault of servants of an independent contractor in causing injury to the railroad's employee, based upon the delegation of a non-delegable duty of care. The Court found another basis for its decision, however, and avoided the question of the applicability of this common law liability under the FELA. The concurring opinions of Justices Clark and Whittaker in the Sinkler case state simply that the decision of the Court should be controlled by the fact that the defendant's duty was non-delegable. Neither opinion discusses the question of whether the scope of the FELA is broad enough to encompass this concept.34

Judge O'Sullivan, dissenting in the Payne case, meets the issue squarely. It was his opinion that the plaintiff was attempting to obtain the benefits of two disparate theories without accepting the detrimental consequences attendant on either of them. On the one hand, he argued, plaintiff would establish the defendant's accountability for the death of Payne by use of the common law doctrine of vicarious liability. Once the defendant's accountability was thus established, the plaintiff would then apply the FELA as the measure of the remedy. He argues that the plaintiff cannot establish accountability by use of the common law without being subject to the common law defenses, and vice versa, that the plaintiff cannot apply the FELA as the measure of the remedy without first having

established the defendant's accountability under the FELA. In his opinion, the doctrine of vicarious liability is not applicable under the FELA, which bases liability solely on some fault of the defendant, its officers, agents, or employees. Judge O'Sullivan sums up his argument as follows: "It was the duty of the B. & O. [defendant] to see to it that the SUCO siding was maintained in such a way as to provide its employees with a safe place to work. If it negligently failed to discharge such duty, it could not excuse its own negligence by declaring that it had delegated such duty to another. But if a railroad fully discharges its duty to maintain a safe place for its employees, it will not vicariously or by imputation be charged with the positive and unexpected negligence of another, unless the railroad has actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe condition and does nothing about it.” (Emphasis in original.)

Judge O'Sullivan's argument would be persuasive if the court were free to rely upon a strict interpretation of the FELA. Its weakness lies in the fact that neither the Supreme Court nor sound statutory construction permit such reliance. The Supreme Court has said that the FELA is remedial in nature and must be liberally construed in order to fulfill the purpose for which it was enacted.30 The purpose of the FELA is twofold: It was clearly the intention of Congress to give the employee a remedy free of the common law defenses. and it was also the intention of Congress to promote greater safety in the railroad industry by imposing upon the railroads a greater share of the responsibility for that safety.37

The purpose of the FELA would not be fulfilled by limiting the liability of a railroad to those injuries caused by its "officers, agents, or employees." These words were used by Congress for the specific purpose of declaring inapplicable the fellow servant doctrine. To permit a railroad to use them as a shield from liability by the simple device of delegating its responsibility for the safe condition of the place of work to another who is not technically an "officer, agent, or employee" would frustrate the Congressional purpose. The railroad should not be able to use this statutory language, which was employed for the purpose of expanding the employee's remedy, as a limitation on that remedy.

The purpose of the FELA is more nearly fulfilled by extending the scope of its remedy to include the vicarious liability of an employer who attempts to avoid the application of that Act by delegating the responsibilities arising under it. If this is the holding of the Payne case, it is a proper definition of the scope of the FELA.

Footnotes 1. 35 Stat. 65 (1908); 45 U.S.C. Par. 51-60 (1952). A prior act, 34 Stat. 232 (1906), was held unconstitutional in Employers’ Liability Cases, 207 U.S. 463 (1908).

2. In urging the adoption of the second FELA, President Theodore Roosevelt declared: “The practice of putting the entire burden of loss of life or limb upon the victim or the victim’s family is a form of social injustice in which the United States stands in an unenviable position. I urge upon the Congress the enactment of a law which will at the same time bring federal legislation up to the standard already established by all European countries and which will serve as a stimulus to the various states to perfect their legislation in this regard.” 42 Cong. Rec. 73 (1907).

3.35 Stat. 65 (1908); 45 U.S.C. Par. 51 (1952).

4. 309 F. 2d 546 (6th Cir., 1962), cert. denied 374 U.S. 827 (1962).

5. Floody v. Great Northern R.R., 102 Minn. 81, 112 N.W. 875 (1907); Northern Chicago Street R.R. v. Dudgeon, 184 Ill. 477, 56 N.E. 796 (1900); Prosser, Law of Torts 359-360 (2d ed., 1955).

6. See generally, Prosser, Law of Torts 373-374 (2d ed., 1955); Richter & Forer, Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 12 F.R.D. 13, 14-16 (1953).

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. S. Rep. No. 460, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1908).

10. 35 Stat. 65. Par. 1 (1908); 45 U.S.C. Par. 51 (1952).

11. 35 Stat. 65. Par. 3 (1908); 45 U.S.C. Par. 53 (1952).

12. 35 Stat. 65. Par. 4 (1908); 45 U.S.C. Par. 54 (1952).

13. 353 Stat. 404 (1939); 45 U.S.C. Par. 54 (1952).

14. See generally, Prosser, Law of Torts 382-388 (2d ed., 1955).

15. 344 U.S. 407, 410-411 (1953). See also dissenting opinions of Justice Harlan in Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 563 (1956); Harris v. Pennsylvania R.R., 361 U.S. 15, 20 (1959).

16. Sinkler v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 856 U.S. 326 (1958).

17. 337 U.S. 163 (1949).

18. Tennant v. Peoria & P.U.R.R., 321 U.S. 29 (1943); Ellis v. Union Pac. R.R., 329 U.S. 649 (1947); Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 695 (1945); Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53 (1948); Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500 (1956); Harris v. Pennsylvania R.R., 361 U.S. 15 (1959).

19. Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 695 (1945).

20. Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53 (1948).

21. 309 F. 2d at 549.

22. Ibid.

23. 319 U.S. 350 (1943)

24. Id. at 353.

25. Ibid.

26. 165 F. 2d 473 (8th Cir., 1948); cited with approval in Schenker v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 374 U.S. 1 (1963).

27.356 U.S. 326 (1958).

28. Id. at 330-331.

29. Id. at 331-332.

30. 309 F. 2d at 550.

31. E.g., Shenker v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 374 U.S. 1 (1963); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Robertson, 214 F. 2d 746 (4th Cir., 1954); Chicago Great W. R.R. v. Casuara, 234 F. 2d 441 (8th Cir., 1956).

32. Kennedy v. Pennsylvania R.R., 169 F. Supp. 406 (W.D. Penn. 1959); Baltimore & O.R.R. v. Alpha Portland Cement Co. (3rd C.R. 1955).

33. 356 U.S. 326 (1958).

34. Id. at 332.

35. 309 F. 2d at 551.

36. Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1 (1911); Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1948).

37. See concurring opinion of Justice Douglas in Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53, 68 (1948).

Image Illustration of man reading a will to six seated people. Caption: “…and to my brother-in-law Seymour, who wanted to be remembered in my will – hi there, Seymour!”

Used by special permission of The Saturday Evening Post. © 1961 by The Curtis Publishing Company.

ALSA 15th Anniversary - Annual Meeting in N. Y. by Frank O' Meara

The American Law Student Association celebrated its fifteenth anniversary this past summer in conjunction with its annual meeting. The annual meeting was held in New York City, August 10 through August 13. It was my privilege and pleasure to attend the meeting as the voting delegate from William Mitchell College of Law Student Bar Association. Eighty two law schools were represented.

The ALSA's INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM was a major project of the meeting. This program requires a $2.00 per year investment of any student interested, and in return provides the Student Lawyer Journal to individual members (for several years all law students had received this journal free of charge-, and other services.

Another major project was the ALSA LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM. This program makes available low-cost, high-quality insurance protection to law students. The amount of life insurance available has been increased from $10,000 (with an additional $2,000 provided by the ALSA at no additional cost to the policy holder) to $20,000 (and $4,000 additional insurance provided at no cost by the A.L.S.A. for $80 per premium year. This insurance, underwritten by a local St. Paul Life Insurance Company, is designed to be of service to law students. Application forms are available in the school office.

The meeting sponsored a Legal Writing Symposium and a Criminal Law Seminar. Both were very interesting. The Legal Writing Symposium incorporated much of what is taught at William Mitchell in the Legal Drafting and the Legal Writing courses.

The Criminal Law Seminar was conducted by Frank G. Wrightly who had just successfully defended

Roy Cohn in a federal court conspiracy case. Mr. Wrightly presented the prosecution side of a criminal case. Grant B. Cooper presented the defense. Mr. Cooper had defended Dr. Finch in the Finch-Tregoff murder trial in California where Dr. Finch and Miss Tregoff were accused of the murder of Mrs. Finch. Mr. Cooper's first words were "Be grounded in the rules of evidence," which brought to mind Mr. Fitzgerald in his course on Evidence. This seminar was extremely interesting and well conducted.

The meeting closed on August 13 with the election of National officers for the current school year. Mont P. Hoyt, senior student from the University of Oklahoma Law School, was elected National President. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Hoyt at breakfast on the opening day of the convention and found him to be a very capable person. Since August Mr. Hoyt has enlarged the services provided under the Individual Membership Program and I strongly recommend this program to each student at William Mitchell.

The American Law Student Association has come a long way in the past fifteen years, and is now highly regarded by the American Bar Association. For this, each law student can be proud of his organization.

Insurance – ALSA LIFE ALSA Life Insurance, originally limited to $5,000, can now be obtained in amounts up to $20,000 by law students under age 40. In addition, double indemnity is provided for accidental death, and ALSA also adds an amount year-to-year (currently 20%), so that an eligible student carrying the maximum, dying accidentally, would currently receive $48,000 in benefits.

This coverage is not group insurance, nor is it ordinary term insurance. It is a unique contract, designed for law students, sold by Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, one of the oldest and largest mutual companies.

The contract is non-cancellable, and includes permanent-total disability waiver of premium, conversion privileges, lifetime guaranteed rates, retention through military service, and assignability to protect creditors. Rates vary with the amount of coverage, but may be as low as $3.34 per $1,000, including the additional 20% provided by ALSA.

Life insurance for the student's entire family may be written into the contract, providing $2,000 on the spouse and $1,000 on each present or future child from age six months to 21 years.

For further information, write Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, Victory Square, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 or ALSA, 1155 E. 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637.

FRATERNITIES ELECT OFFICERS, SLATE ACTIVITIES by Jack A. Mitchell

There are two national legal fraternities presently active at William Mitchell. Each is designed not as a social organization, but as an organization to better acquaint the William Mitchell student with the legal profession and his fellow law students.

Phi Alpha Delta, as in past years, will again invite men, outstanding in their field, to address the fraternity on matters of interest to the law student. Previous meetings of this sort have included programs devoted to the practice of law in Ramsey County and recent changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plans are being made for a series of meetings where non-members may get acquainted with the organization.

This year's officers of Phi Alpha Delta are Ronald E. Wills, Justice; William O. White, Vice Justice; Eugene R. Ouradnik, Marshall; Frank J. O'Meara, Treasurer; and William F. Messerli, Clerk. The organization has grown from five to 18 members this year.

Delta Theta Phi is headed this year by Ronald F. Johnson, Dean. Other officers for the year are John R. Speakman, Vice Dean; John R. Holtey, Treasurer; Rodney F. Simmer, Tribune; and Craig E. Scholle and William James Hay.

Plans are now being made for the annual all-school dance, sponsored by Delta Theta Phi, to be held in the month of January. In addition to regular functions, the fraternity is R. Johnson planning a series of smokers designed to better acquaint non-members with the fraternity and its membership.

Delta Theta Phi's year is again to be climaxed with the annual Founder's Day Banquet where a guest speaker will address the members and their guests.

Image R. Johnson

New Appointments – Made to Teaching Staff by Bruce Christopherson

RICHARD S. LARSON, teaching Legal Accounting first semester, is a partner in the firm of Wheeler, Fredrikson & Larson. Before joining the firm in 1954, he spent two years as Special Assistant to the Attorney General in Washington, D.C. Mr. Larson, who received his B.S. and LL.B. degree from the University of Minnesota, has previously taught in the area of taxation, and was recently appointed to the Minneapolis School Board.

DAVID S. DOTY is the most recent representative from the Minneapolis law firm of Erickson, Popham, Haik & Schnobrich to join the William Mitchell faculty. He will teach Labor Law, in which he specializes, second semester. After graduating from the University of Minnesota in 1961 with his B.A. degree and LL.B. degree cum laude, Mr. Doty was associated with Feldhaber, Larson & Fenlon before joining his present firm as senior associate.

ROBERT L. FINDORFF will be teaching Property 1 second semester. He received a B.B.A. degree with honors in 1952 and an M.B.A. degree in 1956 from the University of Minnesota, before graduating magna cum laude from William Mitchell. Mr. Findorff, who was a teaching assistant at the University of Minnesota, is associated with Oppenheimer, Hodgson, Brown, Wolff & Leach.

ROBERT G. LAUCK, who will teach Administrative Law second semester, is counsel for the Univac Division, Sperry Rand Corp. His educational background includes an A.B. degree from Wichita State University, LL.B. from Kansas University, and LL.M. from George Washington University. Previous to joining Univac, Mr. Lauck was attorney in the office of the General Counsel, Navy Department, at Washington, D.C. and other locations. He has two years of teaching experience in Contract and Administrative Law at the U.S. Government School in Lengries, Germany.

Image Larson, Doty, Findorff, and Lauck

Freshman Class Profile Reviewed by William D. Sommerness

This year's freshman class, one hundred and thirty-four strong, began its legal studies at William Mitchell College of Law with an average Law School Admission Test score of 531, surpassing last year's record high of 510.

Sixty-one per cent of the incoming students are married, compared with the overall school average of seventy-two per cent. There are four women in the class. The average age of incoming students is twenty-six.

Ninety per cent of the students enter with college degrees. Geographically, they come from as far away as Massachusetts. The number of colleges and universities represented is large, but the predominant schools include the University of Minnesota, St. Thomas College, and St. John's University.

Varied occupations are represented among the students. There are a total of seventeen claims adjusters or examiners, eight engineers, nine accountants, five chemists, and four teachers. Thomas Kelly is the Deputy Finance Commissioner of St. Paul. The Membership Director for the Chamber of Commerce in St. Paul is Gerald Vorpahl.

The communications media is represented by reporters from both the Minneapolis Star and Tribune and the St. Paul Dispatch – Pioneer Press. Gerald Regnier is the producer of "Doctor's Housecall" on television.

It is said that much of a lawyer's time is spent listening to his client's problems; in that respect one member of the class should have a head start…he is a bartender!

BEHIND EACH MAN – Law Wives Plan Busy Year by Gretchen Collins

William Mitchell Law Wives have resumed activities in this the seventh year of the organization. And just to dispel any rumors, let it be said that our intentions are nothing less than noble. The fact that the first Wednesday night of every month (along with every Tuesday and any other free night that might warrant a meeting) may find the law wife’s husband forsaking academic obligations to wash dishes and put the children to bed, may weaken our cause a bit. But in spite of this, if there is any truth at all to the old adage of there being a terrific her behind every him, each law wife is out to prove it.

In 1958, it was written in the constitution that as a law wife, one should “improve the understanding…of the problems, ambitions, standards and responsibilities of law students and of lawyers; be of assistance in every possible way to the students and to the law school; and promote social fellowship among William Mitchell Law Wives.” The second of these objections is effected through our support of the William Mitchell Scholarship Fund. In 1963 the fund received $225 from the Law Wives. In 1964 Law Wives presented $400 to the scholarship fund.

Leading this year’s group is Mrs. Don R. Sjostrom, President. Her board members are Mrs. Fred R. Long, Vice-President; Mrs. Jack A. Postlewaite, Recording Secretary; Mrs. William D. Kenyon, Corresponding

Secretary; Mrs. Floyd Hillstrom, Treasurer; Mrs. Robert F. Collins, Publicity Chairman; Mrs. Alan W. Falconer, Hospitality Chairman; Mrs. John L. Frost, Social Chairman; Mrs. James J. Nelson and Mrs. Phil A. Gartner, Members-At-Large.

October 7 marked the beginning, and a fortuitous one, of the new season. This year’s Freshman Party, combined with the first meeting, was attended by almost 100 wives. Dean Heidenreich greeted the wives, filled us in on the background of the Law School, and gave us support to carry on our work. This year’s program was discussed. The dance, which is the first major money raising event, was held November 20 at the Thunderbird Motor Hotel. Mrs. Patrick H. O’Neill was chairman. Ticket Chairmen were Mrs. Richard R. Solie and Mrs. Clement J. Commers. The Luncheon Style Show will also be held at the Thunderbird, on March 13. Mrs. Asa E. Buttrick is chairman of this event.

Law Wives are also responsible for selecting and arranging the juries for each Moot Court case, and are themselves a very important source of jurors. Mrs. Thomas W. Murray heads the committee.

A purely social diversion which is new this year is bowling. Mrs. Alan W. Falconer has organized a six-team league which meets every Tuesday.

Mrs. Phil A. Gartner will be in charge of the Junior-Senior Party which has become a traditional commencement activity, put on by Junior wives for the Seniors, their wives and parents.

Mrs. D. Wayne Snyder will lead the group in a project that will concern helping the needy in our community.

FACULTY SKETCH – Johnson On Equity by Tom Foley

William Mitchell is fortunate to have as its instructor in Equity Mr. Gordon Johnson. Mr. Johnson has been teaching law for fifteen years and has taught the course in Equity since the Minneapolis-Minnesota School and the St. Paul School of Law merged into the present school in 1958. For eight years prior to this Mr. Johnson taught Contracts at the Minneapolis-Minnesota School of Law on a full time basis; in 1949 and 1951 he taught there part-time while maintaining his law practice.

Born and raised in Minneapolis, he graduated from Washburn High School in 1940. He attended Northwestern University at Evanston, Illinois from 1940 until 1943, when he became a member of the armed forces. He served in the Army Signal Corps for three years and saw action in the Pacific. From 1946 to 1949 Mr. Johnson attended Northwestern University Law School. Upon graduation he was admitted to practice in Illinois, and he also became a member of the Minnesota bar. While in school Mr. Johnson was a member of Phi Beta Kappa and of Phi Eta Sigma, a freshman honor society. He was a member of Alpha Delta Phi fraternity while an undergraduate, and Phi Delta Phi while in law school.

He returned to Minnesota to practice law in 1949. The Korean War, however, brought him back into military life; he became a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps and served in the Pentagon in Washington, where he attained the grade of first lieutenant. Upon release from active duty he resumed law practice in Minneapolis, and also began teaching full time.

A partner in the firm of Johnson and Sands, 1st National Bank Building, Minneapolis, he is presently treasurer of the Family and Childrens Service, a United Fund agency. He also serves on the board of directors of the Danish Old Folks Home, and is Vice Consul of Denmark for the upper midwest. In this

capacity he represents Danish Nationals in this country in matters which require coordination between the United States and Denmark. He has twice gone to Denmark for meetings of the honorary consuls. His latest trip was made this year, when he and his wife Carol toured Denmark, France, England and Ireland after the meetings.

The Johnsons have four boys; Marcus 11, Christopher 7, Daniel 5, and Thomas 3. In his all-too-few free moments he and his family enjoy sailing, water skiing, and fishing at their lake cabin.

Teaching has held great interest for Mr. Johnson for many years. He believes that a sound night school program is essential to the development of a well-rounded legal educational system for the state of Minnesota, and he is willing to personally advance that idea. He feels that instruction from practicing attorneys, combined with that of regular instructors, can be of great benefit to the students by giving them a practical approach to the subjects taught as well as an academic approach.

Mr. Johnson's father Andrew N. Johnson, also a lawyer practicing in Minnesota, was for many years a law professor at our school. The elder Mr. Johnson is currently president of the board of trustees of William Mitchell College.

Image G. Johnson

SBA NEWS – Smoker Draws Record Turnout by Jim Basset and Ed Kappus

The William Mitchell College of Law Student Bar Association gave the 1964-1965 school year an enthusiastic send-off with the annual SBA Smoker on September 25, 1964.

The Smoker was held at Sons of Norway Lodge, Lake Street and Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis. Approximately 200 students, a number of faculty members and the Dean attended. It was estimated that this was the largest turnout ever for this event. As in past years, it gave students and faculty an opportunity to meet for informal discussions.

In addition to sponsoring the annual Smoker, the Student Bar Association lends financial assistance to publication of the William Mitchell Opinion.

The 1964-1965 officers of the SBA, elected in April and installed on Law Day are Frank O'Meara, President; Tom McLeod, Vice President; Rod Simmer, Secretary; and Bob Rahn, Treasurer.

SBA class representatives were elected in October. For sections I and II respectively, they are Samuel Hanson and Allan Mulligan, seniors; Donald Hillstrom and Eugene Ouradnik, juniors; James Lane and Duane Harves, sophomores and Thomas Kelley and Gerald Regnier, freshmen.

ALUMNI NEWS by John Brandt

1917 LOUIS P. SHEAHAN, 72, St. Paul city director of law, died on advertising for Sept. 23, 1964 of an apparent heart attack aboard an airplane en route from the Twin Cities to Chicago. He became assistant corporation counsel for the city in 1931. He left in 1942 to organize a legal department at the Walter

Butler Construction Co., but returned to the city attorney's office in 1951 as a special assistant. His latest position was created for him in 1960 by the St. Paul City Counsel.

1920 CASPER R. FEHUR has written an article on Socrates, to be published by The Athene magazine, Chicago. He resides at the Park Nursing Home, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.

1921 CARL F. GRANRUD received the Service to Freedom Award of the Minnesota State Bar Association on behalf of the Lutheran Brotherhood Insurance Society. The plaque is in recognition of a highly successful United States Savings Bond solicitation drive. Mr. Granrud is Executive Director and Chairman of the Board of the Society.

1922 L. A. REUDER retired as president of Title Insurance Company of Minnesota on Jan. 1, 1964. His retirement capped a 44-year career with the firm.

1925 DONALD LUCIER writes that he recently met Dan Nelson (1927) at Nikko, Japan. Both were touring, but in opposite directions. Lucier lives at 817 Tyrol Trail, Minneapolis.

1927 CARL E. TURNROSE, Assistant Cashier of the First National Bank of Minneapolis, retired last year. His address is the Minneapolis Athletic Club, 615 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis.

1930 GRETCHEN M. PRACT, director of public relations and advertising for Lutheran Brotherhood, was recently chosen “Insurance Woman of the Year.” Leaving private practice in 1940, she entered the insurance industry. In 1951 she was named assistant to the President of the Brotherhood, and has been director of the public relations and advertising department since it was organized in 1954. She was elected a Vice-President in 1962, becoming the first woman to hold that office.

Mrs. Pract has served in many areas outside the scope of her work, including a term as president of the press section and chairwoman of the public relations committee of the National Fraternal Congress in 1957-58, and chairwoman of the publicity committee in 1963.

1931 WARREN B. (PAT) King of the firm if King and MacGregor has been named to the board of governors of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. The Academy is restricted to a membership of 500 trial lawyers throughout the world who have at least 15 years of trial experience. His offices are located at 945 Northwestern Bank Bldg., Minneapolis.

1937 CHARLES R. MURNANE has been elected President of the Minnesota State Bar Association. He is a past President of the Ramsey County Bar Association, and is a member of the American Bar Association. He is also a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and the American Bar Foundation. Mr. Murnane is a member of the firm of Murnane, Murnane, Battis & de Lambert.

1937 ELLSWORTH R. MAC DOUGALL is manager of the fidelity and security claims department of the United Pacific Insurance Company in Tacoma, Washington. He was formerly associated with the American Hardware Insurance Company. His address is 4340 South Fawcett, Tacoma.

1940 WILLIAM R. ARESON established an office in Madison, South Dakota in 1941. He has been elected States Attorney (County) four times for two-year terms each. In 1955, he was appointed by the governor to the South Dakota Board of Charities and Corrections for a six-year term. He was also elected State Senator in 1960, and is running for re-election this year.

1942 LAWRENCE P. GHERTY has been elected State Deputy of the Wisconsin State Council, Knights of Columbus, at their state convention. He practices law in Hudson, Wisconsin.

1954 AUDREY H. PARISH has been appointed by Governor Rolvaag to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Commission. Mrs. Parish served on the state Indian Item Committee of the Minnesota Council of Churches. She also served four years on the Commission on Human Relations for the Mayor of Minneapolis. Her husband and law partner is Richard J. Parish. They have four children and live at 2565 Vale Crest Road, Golden Valley.

1956 JAMES A. NOWAK is manager of the pension and special plans department of the Northwestern National Life Insurance Company. A World War II army veteran, he attended the University of Minnesota, receiving his B.A. in 1949. He became associated with Northwestern National Life in 1951. He was appointed group secretary in 1957, in which capacity he became primarily responsible for new group contracts.

1959 JAMES E. ZENG has joined the law offices of Lauerman & Willette in Olivia, Minnesota. Born in Wisconsin and graduated from Eau Claire State College, he entered law practice in 1960, and was City Attorney for Wabasha for three years.

WILLIAM M. VOLBRECHT has recently purchased the Morgan law practice of W.R. Werring. Prior to practicing at Slayton, he was located at Worthington.

1960 PAUL V. FLING, JR. is continuing in general practice with offices at Slayton and Fulda, after the dissolution of the firm of Fling and Volbrecht in Slayton. He is also Murray County Attorney.

1961 MARVIN MITCHELL has opened an office in International Falls for the general practice of law. He was formerly associated with Eugene Williamson and served briefly as city attorney. He is a graduate of Michigan State, where he received a B.S. degree in police administration.

CHARLES A. JOHNSON has rejoined the patent and licensing department of Univac in the Twin Cities as a patent attorney. He resigned his position as electrical engineer and attorney for Univac a year ago to

enter private practice in Albert Lea. During this period, he served as assistant county attorney in Freeborn County. A native of Amery, Wisconsin, he received a bachelor’s degree in engineering from South Dakota State College in 1957.

1962 MARK H. MEYER has become associated with William Meyer, with offices at 6 North 3rd Avenue East, Melrose. He received his B.A. from St. Cloud State College.

1963 MILTON H. BIX is now engaged in the general practice of law. His offices are at 1007 Soo Line Building, Minneapolis.

DAVID SHIN is currently practicing in Kansas City, Missouri.

ROBERT F. SCHMITT left the labor relations department of Cargill, Inc. in April, 1964 to become associated with the law firm of Feidt & Lang in Minneapolis.

HERBERT M. ADRIAN, JR. and his family live at 5467 Military Road, Lewiston, New York, he as joined the patent department of the Hooker Chemical Corporation.

THOMAS F. SJOGREN is now associated with the Honorable Andred R. Larson (1958) in the general practice of law at 333 West Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota.

SAMUEL B. FRIED announced the opening of his law office at 715 Northwestern National Bank Bldg., St. Paul.

JAMES A. GULDAN joined the Stillwater firm of Albertson, Norton & Jergens, in November of 1963. While attending law school, he was employed by the claims department of the Mutual Service Insurance Companies.

1964 JOHN J. WATERS recently joined the legal staff of the city of Bloomington as its second Assistant City Attorney. A graduate of St. Thomas College, he has worked in the planning department of the Prudential Insurance Company’s regional home office for the past seven years.

Minnesota Bar Appoints New Education Director by David Simecek

Announcement has been made of the appointment of Austin G. Anderson as head of the Continuing Legal Education Program to be offered through the General Extension Division of the University of Minnesota. The use of the facilities of the Extension Division will make it possible for the program to utilize the services of a full time director without increasing the cost to the Minnesota Bar Association over that of the previous limited program. The Bar Association will provide a maximum of $7,000 a year for the next three years to support the program. The new and expanded capacity of the program was the result of work by a committee consisting of Chairman C. Paul Jones (Chairman of the Bar Association Committee on Continuing Legal Education), former Dean Curtis and present Dean Heidenreich of William Mitchell, Dean Lockhart and Professor Hetland of the U. of M. Law School, Philip Neville, 1963 President, Minnesota Bar Association, Donald B. Smith and Charles R. Murnane of St. Paul, Frederic N.

Brown, Thomas C. Myers and David R. Brink of Minneapolis, Leonard A. Erickson of Crookston and Frederic N. Brown of Rochester.

The enthusiasm of the William Mitchell administration has been expressed by Dean Heidenreich who points out the advantages to the legal profession of securing the services of a highly skilled full time director. The students and graduates can take justifiable pride in the part played in the committee by the present and former Deans. William Mitchell College has given the program its wholehearted support, trusting that the present and future graduates will share this feeling and give themselves the advantage of full participation in and cooperation with the program and its new director.

Although details of the new program are not yet available, the qualifications of the new director will indicate the importance the committee places upon the program. Mr. Anderson received a B.A. in Political Science in 1954 and an LL.B. in 1958 from the U. of M. Following four years in private practice he has been Director of the Institute on Continuing Education of the Illinois Bar for the past 18 months, during which time he has produced, among others, programs on Federal Taxation, Estate Planning, Negligence Law, Uniform Commercial Code, a Practical Law Institute for Younger Lawyers and two Corporate Counsel Institutes in cooperation with Northwestern University School of Law. In August of 1964, Mr. Anderson was elected a member of the Executive Committee of the Association of Continuing Legal Education Organizations, which was formed by the ABA to expand and develop such programs.

We in Minnesota are fortunate to have the cooperation of the Extension Division, and to have acquired a director with Mr. Anderson's qualifications. The number, type and quality of programs which will be available will depend in large measure on the interest shown by the members of the Minnesota Bar, since no matter how skilled the personnel, or how excellent the facilities, the success of such an undertaking will be measured by the participation of the people for whom it is intended. The alumni of William Mitchell have achieved their legal education by a difficult process, and should be aware that as the law changes and grows, they also must grow and learn after they leave school if they are most effectively to protect the interests of the clients they serve. Enlightened self-interest should show the members of the Minnesota Bar the importance of this program, and the value to them of their participation in and support of it.