(concurring specially). This action was instituted and prosecuted against the Northern Pacific Eailway Company alone. No motion or proceedings were had, either by the plaintiff or the defendant, to substitute the Director General as a party defendant under his General Order No. 50. Upon the reasoning of my dissenting opinion in McGregor v. Great Northern R. Co. 42 N. D. 269, 4 A.L.R. 1635, 172 N. W. 847, I fully concur in the reversal and dismissal of this action. See Castle v. Southern R. Co. 112 S. C. 407, 8 A.L.R. 959, 99 S. E. 847; Nash v. Southern P. R. Co. 260 Fed. 280; Peacock v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. 208 Mich. 403, 8 A.L.R. 964, 175 N. W. 580; also dissenting opinions, State ex rel. Langer v. Northern P. R. Co. 43 N. D. 556, 172 N. W. 335, reversed in Northern P. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135, 63 L. ed. 897, P.U.R.1919D, 705, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502, 18 N. C. C. A. 878.
Grace, J., concurs.