One of the main functions of the cardinals is to act as advisors and assistants to the Roman Pontiff in the government of the Universal Church. Some of them discharge this responsibility heading the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, the central administrative organ of the Church. In the 20th century, three popes issued apostolic constitutions effecting a major reform and reorganization of the Roman Curia: Pius X's Sapienti consilio, June 29, 1908; Paul VI's Regimini Ecclesiae Universae, August 15, 1967; and John Paul II's Pastor bonus, June 28, 1988. Beginning in 1997, Pope John Paul II named some non-cardinal prelates to head Vatican dicasteries; the practice has been continued by Pope Benedict XVI. The main source used for the historical notes is Pontifical Yearbook. Supplement. Historical notes. Città del Vaticano : Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, [n.d.]. Following are the lists of Roman dicasteries headed by cardinals.
The origins of the Secretariat of State go back to the 15th century. The apostolic constitution of Non Debet Reprehensibile issued by Pope Innocent VIII on December 31, 1487 established the Secretaria Apostolica or Collegio dei Segretari Apostolici, comprising 24 apostolic secretaries, one of whom had the title Secretarius Domesticus and held a position of pre-eminence. During the pontificate of Leo X (1513-1521), the office of the Secretarius intimus was created. This office was charged with the correspondence with the apostolic nuncios, who were being appointed with diplomatic prerogatives in permanent fashion. For a long time, the Secretarius Intimus, also called Secretarius Papae or Secretarius Maior, was almost always a prelate, often endowed with episcopal rank. From these beginnings, the Secretariat of State developed, especially at the time of the Council of Trent.
The Secretariat of State began in this way and was later directed by the cardinal nephew (cardinale nipote), who acted as prime minister of the pope, and gradually developed, in particular at the time of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The office of secretary intimus was entrusted at the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent X (1644-1655) to someone who was already a cardinal and who did not belong to the pope's family. This personage was Cardinal Giovanni Giacomo Panciroli. Pope Innocent XII (1691-1700), with the bull Romanum decet Pontificum, dated June 22, 1692, abolished the office of Cardinal Nephew, who by then had become the General superintendent of the Papal States. The cardinal secretary of State took over his powers permanently. In 1814, Pope Pius VII established the Sacred Congregation for the Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, expanding the Congregation Super Negotiis Ecclesiasticis Regni Galliarum established by Pope Pius VI in 1793. Pope Pius X, in his apostolic constitution Sapienti Consilio, June 29, 1908, divided the Secretariat of State into three sections: the first was concerned essentially with extraordinary affairs, while the second attended to the ordinary affairs, and the third, until then an independent body (the Chancery of Apostolic Briefs), had the duty of preparing and dispatching pontifical briefs, of which the first, became later the S.C. for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. This was confirmed by canon 263 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The apostolic constitution Regimi Ecclesiae Universae, issued by Paul VI on August 15, 1967, reformed the Roman Curia, implementing the desire expressed by the bishops in the Second Vatican Council. This gave a new face to the Secretariat of State, suppressing the Chancery of Apostolic Briefs, formerly the third section, and transforming the former first section, the Sacred Congregation for the Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, into a body distinct from the Secretariat of State, though closely related to it, which was to be known as the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church.
John Paul II with the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus, June 28, 1988, introduced a reform of the Roman Curia and divided the Secretariat of State into two sections: the Section for General Affairs and the Section for Relations with States, which incorporated the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church. This guaranteed both unity of purpose and the specificity required in the service which the Secretariat of State is called to offer the pope.
First Section. The Section for General Affairs or the First Section is responsible for handling matters regarding the everyday service of the Supreme Pontiff, both in caring for the universal Church and in dealing with the dicasteries of the Roman Curia. It attends to the preparation of whatever documents the Holy Father entrusts to it. It enacts the provisions for appointments within the Roman Curia and keeps custody of the Lead Seal and the Fisherman's Ring. It regulates the duties and activity of the Holy See's representatives, especially in relation to the local Churches. It attends to all that concerns the embassies accredited to the Holy See. It supervises the Holy See's official communication agencies and is responsible for publishing the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis and the Annuario Pontificio. The First Section of the Secretariat of State is headed by an archbishop, who is assisted by a prelate, the assessor for general affairs. The position of the substitute first appeared in the hierarchical listing of the Secretariat of State in 1814.
Second Section. The Section for Relations with States or Second Section has the specific duty of attending to matters which involve civil governments. It has responsibility for (1) the Holy See's diplomatic relations with states, including the establishment of concordats or similar agreements; (2) for the Holy See's presence in international organizations and conferences; (3) in special circumstances, by order of the Supreme Pontiff and in consultation with the competent dicasteries of the Curia, provides for appointments to particular Churches, and for their establishment or modification; (4) in close collaboration with the Congregation for Bishops, it attends to the appointment of bishops in countries which have entered into treaties or agreements with the Holy See in accordance with the norms of international law. The Second Section is headed by an archbishop, the secretary for relations with states, who is aided by a prelate, the undersecretary for relations with states, and assisted by cardinals and bishops.
This congregation was set up by Pope Pius VII through a biglietto from Cardinal Bartolomeo Pacca, pro-secretary of State, to Fr. Francesco Fontana, dated July 19, 1814, and was thus an expansion of the Congregation set up for "Extraordinary Affairs from the Kingdom of the Gauls", which had been instituted by Pope Pius VI in 1793. Its task was to erect and to divide dioceses and to appoint bishops in those cases in which it is necessary to take these matters up with civil governments, as also to discuss those matters which the pope may turn over to it through the cardinal secretary of State, especially those dealing with civil laws, concordats, or other agreements entered into between the Holy See and different countries (can. 255; Letter of Pius XI, July 5, 1925; Acta Apostolicæ Sedis, vol. XVIII, p. 89). Its name was changed to Council for the Public Affairs of the Church in 1967. John Paul II with the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus, June 28, 1988, which reformed the Roman Curia, divided the Secretariat of State into two sections: the Section for General Affairs and the Section for Relations with States, which incorporated the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church.
Established by Pope Paul III with the constitution Licet ab initio, July 21, 1542, with the name of Supreme S.C. of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. Pope Sixtus V reorganized the Congregation by his apostolic constitutinon Immensa aeterni Dei of February 11, 1588. Pope Pius X changed its name to Supreme S.C. of the Holy Office (apostolic constitution Sapienti Consilio, June 29, 1908). The Congregation was again reorganized and had its name changed to its present form by Pope Paul VI's motu proprio Integrae servanda, of December 7, 1965. Until 1968, the pope held the title of prefect but never exercised this office. Instead, he appointed a cardinals to preside over the meetings, first as secretary and then as pro-prefect. In that year, the head of the Congregation became its prefect. Pope John Paul II reaffirme the authority of the Congregation in Article 48 of the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, Pastor Bonus, promulgated on June 28, 1988.
Created in 1862 by Pope Pius IX within the S.C. of Propaganda Fide, the dicastery was made autonomous by Pope Benedict XV in 1917 and its competence was increased by Pope Pius XI in 1938. The congregation exercises "ad normam iuris" over eparchies, bishops, clergy, religious and faithful of Oriental rite, the faculty that the Congregations for Bishops, the Clergy, the Institutes of Consecrated Life, Catholic Education have over the dioceses, bishops, clergy and faithful of the Latin rite. The congregation has exclusive authority over Egypt and Sinai, Eritrea and North Ethiopia, Southern Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestina, Syria, Jordan and Turkey. The pope reserved for himself the prefecture of the congregation, which was run by its secretary. On August 15, 1967, the apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiæ Universæ changed its name from Congregation for the Oriental Church and gave the title of prefect to the cardinal heading the dicastery.
Originally, this congregation had been established by Sixtus V in 1588 with the apostolic constitution Immensa aeterni Dei with the name of Congregation of Rites and Ceremonies. Pope Pius X with the apostolic constitution Sapienti Consilio, of June 29, 1908, instituted the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation of Rites. On May 8, 1969, Pope Paul VI with the motu proprio Sacra Ritum Congregatio, divided the Congregation of Rites into two different congregations: one for Divine Worship and another for the Causes of the Saints. On July 11, 1975, the same pope, Paul VI, unified these two congregations into the Congregation for the the Sacraments and Divine Worship with the apostolic constitution Constans nobis studium. John Paul II separated them again with the chirograph Sacra Congregatio pro Sacramentis et Cultu Divino in duas dividitur Congregationis, dated April 5, 1984, into the Congregation for the Sacraments and the Congregation for Divine Worship. Four years later, on June 28, 1988, this pope reunited them again through the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus with its current name: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
Sixtus V (1585-1590) established the S.C. of Rites by his constitution Immensa aeterni Dei of January 22, 1588 charging it with the direction of divine worship and the handling of the causes of the saints. Through the motu proprio Gia da qualche tempo, published on February 6, 1930, Pope Pius XI added to it an Historical Section to handle the historical causes of servants of God and to see to the correction of liturgical books. It had competence over all the rites and ceremonies of the Latin Church (can. 253, § I) insofar as they refer to the sacrifice of the mass, the administration of the sacraments, sacred ceremonies and, in general, divine worship (can. 253, § 2). It also handles the causes of saints and everything pertaining to sacred relics (can. 253, § 3). On May 8, 1969, the dicastery was divided into two different congregations by Pope Paul VI with the apostolic constitution Sacra Ritum Congregatio: the S.C. for Divine Worship and the S.C. for the Causes of the Saints.
Established by Paul VI with the apostolic constitution Sacra Ritum Congregatio, on May 8, 1969. Unified with the S.C. for the Discipline of the Sacraments by the apostolic constitution Constans nobis studium issued by Paul VI on July 11, 1975, with the name of S.C. for the Sacraments and Divine Worship. John Paul II separated them again with a chirograph dated April 5, 1984. Four years later on June 28, 1988, this pope reunited them again through the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus with its current name.
Set up and organized in stable form by Sixtus V (1585-1590) through his constitution Immensa aeterni Dei, January 22, 1588. Its name was Congregatio pro erectione ecclesiarum et provisionibus consistorialibus. It had the task of providing for the erection of dioceses and preparing the discussion of matters to be decided in consistory. That is why it was called Consistorial Congregation. Pope Pius X with his apostolic constitution Sapienti Consilio, June 29, 1908, widened its duties, giving it competence over bishops, which had formerly been exercised by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, which was suppressed. The name of the congregation was changed to S.C. for the Bishops by the apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae issued by Paul VI on August 15, 1967.
Established by Pope Gregory XV, bull Inescrutabili, June 22, 1622. Named Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (or Propaganda Fide) until 1967.
(1) During the long stay of Cardinal Barberini in France, Cardinal Luigi Capponi acted as vice-prefect from 1645 until 1653.
(2) Appointed on March 1, 1958, he died the following May 27 before taking possession.
Instituted by Pope Pius IV through the constitution Alias nos, August 2, 1564, with the title of "Sacred Congregation of the Cardinals Interpreters of the Council of Trent", to provide the correct interpretation and practical observance of the norms sanctioned by the Council of Trent. Pope Gregory XIII widened its field of competence, and Pope Sixtus V entrusted to it the revision of the acts of provincial councils and, in general, the task of carrying out the reforms prescribed by the Council of Trent. When the task of interpreting the canons of the celebrated council no longer existed, the Congregation retained competence over many matters which were the object of the reforms introduced by Trent. In fact, in general it kept watch over the discipline of the clergy and the faithful (can. 250, § 1), directed catechetical instruction and saw to the observance of the precepts of the Christian life. It exercised its authority over pastors, canons, confraternities, pious associations, Catholic Action, pious legacies, benefices, offices, ecclesiastical property, taxes and tributes (can. 250, §§ 2-3), and retained the right to revise the acts of councils and of episcopal conferences (can. 250, § 4). As part of the Sacred Congregation there is the "Studium", which was reorganized by Pope Benedict XV with an order issued on October 28, 1919, in order that young priests may acquire practical experience in the ordinary and regular dispatching of ecclesiastical business and in the particular applications of canonical laws in the administrative field.
The dicastery was known as Congregation of the Council until August 15, 1967, when Pope Paul VI renamed it the Congregation for the Clergy and redefined its competency through the apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae. Pope John Paul II gave it added responsibilities on June 28, 1988 by the apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus.
Currently, the congregation has three offices with competencies concerning the life, discipline, rights and duties of the clergy (Office of the Clergy); the preaching of the Word, catechetics, norms for religious education of children and adults (Office of Catechetics); preservation and administration of the temporal goods of the Church (Administrative Office). Attached to it are the International Council for Catechetics, which was established in 1973 by Pope Paul VI; and the Institute "Sacrum Ministerium" for the permanent formation of the clergy, established in line with Pope John Paul II's 1992 apostolic exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis, which was annexed to the congregation in the academic year 1994-1995. In that same year, the journal "Sacrum Ministerium", published twice a year, was founded. The congregation has competency over the dispensation of the obligations inherent to the sacred ordination of the diaconate and the presbyterate of the regular and diocesan clergy of the Latin and Oriental Churches, according to the letter of the Secretariat of State, no. 907 of June 21, 2005.
Name changed from Congregation of Religious and Secular Institutes in 1967; name changed to the current one in 1988.
This Congregation was established in 1824 by Leo XII by the apostolic constitution Quod divina sapientia as S.C. of Studies. In 1915, its name was change to S.C. for Seminaries and Universities. In 1967, its name was changed to S.C. for Catholic Education.
The Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life was establsihed ad experimentum by Pope Francis on June 4, 2016 with the motu proprio Come una madre amorevole The new dicastery merged from September 1, 2016 the existing Pontifical Council for the Laity and the Pontifical Council for the Family. On that date both dicasteries ceased their functions and were suppressed, following the repeal of articles 131-134 and 139-141 of the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus of June 28, 1988.
In connection with absolutions from censures and dispensations reserved to the pope we find mention from the end of the XII century of the "Cardinal who hears confessions for the pope ", who had the title of "Penitentiary" under Pope Honorius III (1216-1227) and was later called the "Great" or "Major" Penitentiary. Since the time of Pope Clement V (1305-1314), his faculties no longer expire with the death of the pope ( 1311 - 1312). From the beginning he was assisted by "Penitentiary Chaplains" (or "Minor Penitentiaries "), who still exist in the patriarchal Basilicas and other basilicas which are directly dependent on the Holy See, but without forming part of the Tribunal of the Sacred Penitentiary.
As early as the thirteenth century we find correctors, writers, distributors, and the sealer. Pope Benedict XII (1334-1342) added the office of "Doctor Expert in Canon Law" (April 13, 1338). The office of "Regent" existed under Pope Eugenius IV (April 13, 1438), and that of "Datary" under Pope Alexander VI (1491-1503). Pope Pius V (1566-1572), after having revoked all the faculties of the cardinal penitentiary and having suppressed the Penitentiary itself (April 23, 1569), re-established it (May 18, 1569) after a radical reform, reducing to an absolute minimum the faculties of the cardinal penitentiary in foro externo, and creating the office of "Theologian" which, by privilege, is reserved to the Society of Jesus, and also the Office of "Canonist ". A further reorganization of the faculties and the procedure of the S. Penitentiary took place under Pope Benedict XIV (April I3, 1744); with some modifications, its constitutions remained unchanged under the reform of Pope Pius X, who restricted its jurisdiction exclusively to the internal forum, and under a further reform by Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), who separated the Office of Indulgences from the Holy Office and placed it under the S. Penitentiary (March 25, 1917). These constitutions served as the basis for the apostolic constitution De poenitentiaria apostolica of Pope Pius XI (March 25, 1935). The Congresses for the Tribunal and for Indulgences are held by the regent and by the secretary, along with the substitute of the respective section. The prelates of the Penitentiary meet periodically, under the presidency of the cardinal grand penitentiary, for whom they act as a council, in the meeting which has the name of Signature of the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary.
The apostolic constitution Pastor bonus issued on June 28, 1988, by Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), confirmed that the competence of the Tribunal of the Penitentiary comprises all that belongs to the foro interno although not sacramental and moreover all that related to the concessions and the use of the indulgences, except the right of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to examine all matters related to the dogmatic doctrine about the indulgences.
Étienne de Poissy (1369-1373) ?
In the thirteenth century the Sovereign Pontiffs used the services of officials-reporters (referendarii) to prepare petitions for signature or to refer questions involving justice or favors to the auditors (cardinals-auditors and chaplains-auditors). There has been a permanent Office of the Signature from the time that Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1417) turned over to the referendaries themselves the signature of certain petitions. The division of this Signature, known as the Signature of favor and commissions under Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484), into two dicasteries, had already begun under Pope Alexander VI (May 4, 1493) and was completed by Julius II (1503-1513). Beginning with the end of the fifteenth century there are cardinal prefects for the two Signatures, of which the Signature of Justice was transformed into a real Tribunal. The growing number of the referendaries of the two Signatures led as a practical measure to the formation of a select group known as the voting referendaries, which was erected on July 13, 1659 by Pope Alexander VII (1655-1667) into a college in its own right and which was to draw its members from the ranks of the simple referendaries, who had only consultative voice. With the creation of the Sacred Congregations and the widening held of competence of the Rota and the Apostolic Chamber -- which did not need special orders from the Sovereign Pontiff -- the duties of the Signature gradually diminished, and it eventually became mainly a tribunal of appeal (even for civil cases from the Papal States, according to a decree of Gregory XVI, November 10, 1834). The Signature of favor, which was transformed into a congregation on January 22, 1588 by Pope Sixtus V 1585-1590), lost its importance with the evolution of the Datary, which, from the time of Pope Clement IX (1667-1669) and in the seventeenth century, took over the granting of almost all favors.
The Holy Father Pope Pius X re-established the one sole Apostolic Signature (Constitution, Sapienti Consilio and the Lex Propria S. R. Rotae Signaturae Apostolicae, June 29, 1908) as a Supreme Tribunal, transforming it into a committee of six Cardinals, one of whom was to act as prefect. But with of the 1917 Code of Canon Law the number of cardinals composing the Signature was left unrestricted (can. 1602). Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922) re-established the College of Votanti and that of the Referendaries as consultative organs of the Tribunal (Chirograph, June 28, 1915).
The Apostolic Signature judges with ordinary power: 1) in appeals based on a violation of secrecy by the Auditors of the Rota and on damages caused by the same through unjust or invalid acts; 2) in objections of suspicion against the Auditors of the Rota; 3) in claims of nullity against decisions of the Rota; 4) in requests for restitution against Rotal decisions which have become final; 5) in appeals against Rotal decisions in matrimonial cases which the Rota has refused to admit for further investigation; 6) in conflicts of competence between ecclesiastical tribunals which are not apostolic, conformably to can. 1612, § 2. In virtue of delegated jurisdiction, it deals with petitions of commission to refer a judgment to the Sacred Rota. Lastly, through decisions to be submitted for the approval of the Holy Father, it passes judgment on any question connected with the administration of justice.
The faculties and privileges of the voting prelates and of the referendary prelates are determined by the apostolic constitution Ad incrementum, issued by Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) on August 15, 1934, and later modified by the Normae speciales Signaturae Apostolicae, approved by Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) on March 23, 1968.
The current competence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature was established by the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus, of June 28, 1988, art. 121-125.
Concerning strictly the judicial powers of the Apostolic Signature, it judges: the complaints of invalidity, the demands for restitutio in integrum against the Rotal sentences; the recourses in the causes on the status of the persons, that the Roman Rota refused to admit to new examination; the causes against the Auditors of the Roman Rota for actions during the exercise of their functions; the conflicts of competence according to the can. 1416. As a litigation-administrative court, the Tribunal decides: the disputes resulting from an ecclesiastical administrative action, legitimately submitted; in these cases, besides the illegitimacy judgment, it can also adjudicate, if the recurrent asks for it, the approximate reparation of the damages brought by the illegitimate act; the other administrative controversies submitted to it by the Roman Pontiff or the dicasteries of the Roman Curia; and the conflicts of competence between the same dicasteries. In virtue of the administrative power concerning the judicial forum, the Tribunal is expected to: supervise the fair administration of justice; extend the competence of the courts; to promote and to approve of the erection of the courts according to canons 1423 and 1439. The Tribunal also has other duties deriving from the juridical organization of the State of Vatican City and from certain concordats (e. g. the Concordat with Italy, art. 34; the Concordat with Portugal, art. 25; the Concordat with Santo Domingo, art. 16).
The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature is formed by cardinals, archbishops, and bishops appointed by the pope. One of the cardinals acts as prefect and is assisted by the secretary.
Pontifical Council for the Laity Established by Paul VI ad experimentum on January 6, 1967, by motu proprio Catholicam Christi Ecclesiam with the name of Council of the Laity; given permanent status and name changed to Pontifical Council for the Laity by Paul VI on December 10, 1976, by motu proprio Apostolatus Peragendi. It was abolished on September 1, 2016 and its functions assumed into the new Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life.
On June 5, 1960, the day of Pentecost, with his motu proprio "Superno Dei Nutu", Pope John XXIII established, along with the eleven preparatory commissions for the Second Vatican Council, a Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. In 1988 Pope John Paul II, with his apostolic constitution "Pastor Bonus", changed the name of the secretariat to that of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
Pontifical Council for the Family This council was abolished on September 1, 2016 and its functions transferred to the new Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life.
Pontifical Council Iustitia et Pax On March 11, 2006, the presidency of the council was united to that of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerants. On February 28, 2009, it was separated again. On January 1, 2017 this council was abolished and its functions transferred to the new Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development.
Pontifical Council Cor Unum Established July 15, 1971 by an autograph letter of Pope Paul VI to Cardinal Jean Villot, secretary of State. It was abolished on January 1, 2017 and its functions transferred to the new Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development.
With the motu proprio Apostolicæ Caritatis of March 19, 1970, Pope Paul VI established the Pontifical Commission for the Spiritual Care of Migrants and Itinerants. The dicastery was later named Pontifical Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrations and Tourism; it was changed to the current one on June 28, 1988. The presidency of the council was united to that of the Pontifical Council Iustitia et Pax on March 11, 2006. On February 28, 2009, it was separated again. This council was abolished on January 1, 2017 and its functions transferred to the new Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Decelopment.
Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Health WorkersThis council was established Pope John Paul II with his motu proprio Dolentium Hominum, dated February 11, 1985. The name of the dicastery has also been listed as Pontifical Commission for the Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers. This council was abolished on January 1, 2017 and its functions transferred to the new Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Decelopment.
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative TextsThis council was established Pope John Paul II by articles 154-158 of the apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus, dated June 28, 1988.
Pontifical Council for Promoting the New EvangelizationThis council was established Pope Benedict XVI by the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" Ubicumque et semper, dated September 21, 2010.
Name changed from Pontifical Councl for Non-Christians. On March 11, 2006, the presidency of the council was united to that of the Pontifical Council for Culture. On June 25, 2007, the presidency was separated from that council.
Pontifical Council for CultureMerged with the Secretariat for Dialogue with Non-Believers, March 26, 1993, keeping its name. On March 11, 2006, the presidency of the council was united to that of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialog. On June 25, 2007, the presidency was separated from that council.
Merged with Pontifical Council for Culture, March 26, 1993 taking that name.
The Council was established by Pope John Paul II with a chirograph dated May 31, 1981. The Council was also referred to as the Group of Fifteen (G15). The Council ceased to exist on February 23, 2014 and was replaced by the Secretariat for the Economy.
According to the General Regulations of the Roman Curia of February 4, 1992, chapter III: Meetings of the Council of Cardinals for the Study of the Organizationald and Economic Problems of the Holy See, Art. 84, § 1 were to treat the organizational and economic problems of the Holy See and of related bodies and to suggest appropriate solutions to such problems, the Council is ordinarily convened twice a year, according to art. 24 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus. The meetings were convoked by the Cardinal Secretary of State in collaboration with the Cardinal President of the Prefecture of the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. § 2. The Council may seek the advice of experts. Regolamento Generale della Curia Romana, 4 febbraio 1992 3. The Council was also informed about the activities of the Istituto per le Opere di Religione, according to art. 25 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus. Its members served for five year terms.
In the XI century, for the financial administration of the Curia and of the temporal goods of the Holy See, we find the term camera thesauraria and in the XII century, for the head of this administrative office, we find the name Camerlengo. In this office were absorbed the more ancient charges of vestiarius, vice-dominus, arcarius, and sacellarius. Beginning with the XIII century, this office no longer lapsed with the death of the Pope. In the XIII and XlV centuries it acquired certain jurisdictional functions, not merely in matters of finance but also in some penal and civil cases. Pope Urban VI (1378-1389) extended its competence to all causes dealing, even indirectly, with the rights and interests of the camera (September 8, 1379). The camerlengo was often a cardinal, but it became a cardinalitial office only from the XV century. Beginning at this same period there was also a permanent assistant, known as the vice-camerlengo, which office was later united with that of governor of Rome. The clerics of the camera, who assisted the camerlengo, varied in number from century to century; Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447) organized them into a college and gave them their first statutes (July 6, 1444). For the duties connected with the collection of income, the custody of the treasury, and payments, we find, in the XIII century, the thesaurarius, or treasurer. For the handling of judicial cases, the office of auditor camerae was set up in the XIII century; the powers of this office were increased in 1485 by Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492), and, after a brief period of suppression under Pope Paul IV (1555-1559), also in 1562 by Pope Pius IV (1559-1565) and other popes.
The individual clerics, the auditor camerae, and the treasurer had each acquired certain special prerogatives and presided over special tribunals, but the camera plena also functioned as a collegiate tribunal in which, however, beginning in the XVI century, the cardinal camerlengo no longer exercised his right to preside. On October 30, 1800, Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) formally established a certain dependence of the Camera on the camerlengo. During the XIX century the Camera was mainly a court for the Papal States.
With the apostolic constitution Sapienti Consilio (June 29, 1908), Pope Pius X (1903-1914) confirmed to the Apostolic Camera the functions of temporal power that it had exercised from antiquity. The office, powers, and privileges of the prelate-clerics of the Apostolic Camera were definitively determined by Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) in the constitution Ad incrementum, August 15, 1934. With the apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae (August 15, 1967), issued by Pope Paul VI (1963-1978), the Camera, under the presidency of the cardinal camerlengo of Holy Roman Church or the vice-camerlengo if he is impeded, keeps the office of caring and administering the temporal goods and rights of the Holy See during the sede vacante.
The functions of the cardinal camerlengo and of the camerali during the sede vacante, already enhanced by the apostolic constitution Vacantis Apostolicea Sedis (December 8, 1945), of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), and by the motu proprio Summi Pontifici electio (September 5, 1962) of Pope John XXIII (1958-1963), were integrally confirmed by the apostolic constitution Romano Pontifici eligendo, no. 17 (October 1, 1975) of Pope Paul VI and reaffirmed by the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus (June 28, 1988) of Pope John Paul II (1978-2005).
(1) The list is taken from Niccolò del Re La Curia romana : lineamenti storico giuridici (4th ed. aggiornata ed accresciuta. Città del Vaticano : Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998), p. 296-297. It contains discrepancies with other sources, especially from the 12th to the 14th centuries, that perhaps are unsolvable because of the distance in time and the complexities presented by the different obediences during the Western Schism.
(2) Cardinal Ippolito Antonio Vincenti Mareri was named pro-camerlengo in 1808, temporarily, in the absence of Cardinal Doria.
Established by Pope Benedict XVI on December 30, 2010, by an Apostolic Letter in the form of a Motu Proprio for the Prevention and Countering of Illegal Activities in the Area of Monetary and Financial Dealings. The title of the Motu Proprio was The Apostolic See. The Authority was given new functions by the Motu Proprio "The promotion" of 8 August 2013. On November 15, 2013, Pope Francis issued a Motu Proprio approving the new statutes of the Financial Intelligence Authority. It is also called the Financial Information Authority.
By an Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio Fidelis Dispensator et Prudens of Pope Francis established a new coordinating agency for the economic and administrative affairs of the Holy See and the Vatican City State on February 24, 2014.
Pontifical Commission for the State of Vatican CityThe president of the office has since 2000 concurrently held the office of President of the Governorate of Vatican City State, which is distinct from the former title of Governor of Vatican City.
Pontifical Commission for Latin AmericaThe commission was instituted by Pope Pius XII on April 21, 1958. Pope Paul VI inserted the commission into the S.C. for Bishops on November 30, 1963 as General Council for Latin America. Its president since then has been the prefect of that congregation. Pope John Paul II restructured and strengthened the commission by his motu proprio Decessoris Nostri of June 18, 1988.
The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars was formed from two previous and different dicasteries: the Congregaions super consultationibus episcoporum (1576) of Pope Gregory XIII; and super consultationibus regularium (1586) of Pope Sixtus V, inscribed as the eleventh and twelfth in the list of congregations instituted by the Constitution Immensa aeterni Dei (January 22, 1588) of Pope Sixtus V. The two Congregations are placed under the same prefect by Pope Clement VIII beginning in 1593; they are named from 1601 with the unique title of S. Congregatio negotiis et consultationibus Episcoporum et Regulariumpraeposita, known as Congregatio episcoporum et regularium.
In the 18th and 19th centuries there were conflicts of competence with two other dicasteries of the Roman Curia: the Congregation of the Regular Discipline, instituted in 1698, and the Congregation on the Status of Regular Orders, created in 1846. In 1856, Pope Pius IX decided that from that moment the prefects of the Congregation for Bishops and Regulars assumed additionaly the charge of prefects of the Congregation of the Discipline of Regulars.
Its competence included at the beginning of the 19th century all the questions related to the diocesan administration diocésaine and to the discipline of the Regular Orders, masculine and femenine. The Bull Post diuturnas (October 30, 1800) attributed to this congregation, at the expense of the auditor general of the Apostolic Chamber, the examining of all the criminal cases coming from episcopal curias. The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, which was one of the principal dicasteries of the Curia in the 19th century, was suppressed by the Constitution Sapienti consilio (June 29, 1908) of Pope Pius X; its responsibilities were attributed to two different congregations: the old Congregation Consistorial, which in 1967 became the Congregation for Bishops; and the new Congregation for Regulars. At the dawn of the Restauration, the Congregation comprised cardinal-prefect, an elevated number of cardinals, a secretary, an under-secretary, a judge relator, and employess. Pope Gregory XVI added consultors (Decree of September 5, 1834) and one sommiste (July 14, 1842). The see of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars was in the domicile of the secretary. In 1906 the Congregations of the Discipline of Regulars and of the Status of Regular Orders were suppressed and their competence given to the Congregatione of Bishops and Regulars.
The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars was suppressed by the Constitution Sapienti consilio (June 29, 1908) of Pope Pius X.
The S. Congregatio super residentia episcoporum was convoked for the first time by Pope Urban VIII on March 28, 1635 in conformity with the Constitution Sancta synodus Tridentina of December 12, 1634. This Congregation constituted a particular dicastery to control the residence of the diocesan bishops, under the supervision that since 1564 had been attributed to the Congregation of the Tridentine Council. Having been inactive during the the 17th century, the Congregation of the Residence was was reactivated with the same functions by Pope Benedict XIV in the middle of the 18th century by the Constitution Ad universae christianae reipublicae of September 3, 1746. Definitively suppressed in 1908 by Pope Pius X, its attributions were devolved to the Consistorial Congregation. Placed under the authority of the Cardinal Vicar of Rome pro-tempore, the Congregation of the Residence of Bishops was composed at the dawn of the Restoration by five cardinals members (three members by right: the cardinal pro-Datary, the cardinal Secretary of State, and the secretary of Briefs) and of a secretary who was the secretary of the Congregation of the Tridentine Council pro-tempore. This Congregation was considered as a minor one at that time, assisting the Congregation of the Tridentine Council.
Instituted by Pope Urban VIII in 1626 vivae vocis oraculo, the cardinalitial congregation of the Immunity, which succeeded a particular prelatice congregation formed inside the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, had its first reunion on May 28, 1626. It received the attribution of ensuring compliance and the conservation of all the ecclesiastical immunities enjoyed by the Church throughout the territory of the Catholicity. Its competence was successively reinforced and precised by the Constitutions Ex quo, divina disponente of June 8, 1725, of Pope Benedict XIII; and In supremo iustitiae solio of February 1, 1735, of Pope Clement XII, Officii nostri of March 15, 1750, of Pope Benedict XIV; and Praestat Romanum Ponteficem of September 27, 1766, of Pope Clement XIII. Before the restriction of its attributions during the 19th century, in the course of the affirmation of public law and of the signature of concordats, Pope Gregory XVI confirmed and reduced its attributions for a new regulation of criminal procedure (November 5, 1831) and a motu proprio dated November 10, 1834. Progressively emptied of all substance, the Congregation of the Immunity was united «provisionally» - but, in reality, definitively - to that of the Council at the death of its last prefect, Cardinal Filippo Maria Guidi on February 27, 1879, by a decision of Pope Leo XIII inserted in Gerarchia Cattolica and confirmed in the Code of Canon Law (can 250.3). The Congregation of the Immunity at the beginning of the Restoration was formed by a cardinal prefect, the cardinals, a secretray and the prelats.
The Congregation of the Ecclestiestical Immunity was definitively suppressed in 1908 by Pope Pius X.
The S. Congregatio super correctione librorum Ecclesiae orientalis was established by Pope Clement XI in 1719 on the model of the former congregation super correctione Euchologii Graecorum (1636-1645) formed by Pope Urban VIII within the congregation of Propaganda Fide for the reform of the books of the Greeks of Calabria and Sicily. The Congregation for the Correction of the Books of the Oriental Church, established independently of the Congregation of Propaganda Fide, had for its objective the revision of all the liturgical books of the Oriental Churches in communion with Rome. Pope Benedict XIV gave it a special impetus and in 1754 published an authorized version of the Greek Euchologe (Encyclical Ex quo primum of March 1, 1756). Inactive at the dawn of the Restoration, it was restored under the authority of Cardinal Lorenzo Litta on June 30, 1816. The congregation ceased to exist in 1862 following the formation by Pope Pius IX, within the Congregation of Propaganda Fide, of the new congregation pro negotiis ritus orientalis (Constitution Romani Pontefices of January 6, 1862). At the dawn of the Restoration, the congregation included a cardinal prefect, cardinals, a secretary and consultants practicing or supposed to practice Oriental languages. The master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace was the natural consultant of the congregation. It was abolished on January 6, 1862, when Pope Pius IX created the section for the Oriental Rites within the S.C. for Propaganda Fide. At that time, the S.C. for the Correction of the Books of the Oriental Rites was merged with this section of S.C. of Propaganda Fide.
Instituted by the Constitutions In apostolicae (April 4, 1571) and Ut pestiferarum opinionum (September 13, 1572) of Pope Pius V, former commissary of the Holy Office and Grand Inquisitor in the pontificates of of Popes Paul IV and Pius IV, the new congregation of the Index expamds the commission created by the Council of Trent in its 18th session on February 26, 1562 with the purpose of proceeding to a revision of the Index of prohibited books published the ifrst time by Pope Paul IV in 1559. Under the name of Congregation pro Indice librorum prohibitorum, it occupied the seventh place of the fifteen congregations established by the bull Immensa aeterni Dei (January 22, 1588) of Pope Sixtus V. Its organization, its way of operating and its competence were more precisely defined by the constitution Sollicita ac provida (July 9, 1753) of Pope Benedict XIV, and again by the the constitutions Officiorum ac munerum (January 25, 1897) of Pope Leo XIII and Sapienti consilio (June 29, 1908) of Pope Pius X. The Congregation was suppressed by the motu proprio Alloquentes (March 25, 1917) of Pope Benedict XV and its functions were transferred to the Congregation of the Holy Office, and later to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. At the dawn of the Restoration, the Congregation of the Index was composed of a cardinal prefect, the cardinals, a perpetual assistant in the person of the master of the Apostolic Palace pro tempore, chosen from the Order of the Dominicans, a secretary, equally chosen from the Dominicans, and by consultores. The secretariat of the congregation resided at the Dominican convent of S. Maria sopra Minerva. The congregation was suppressed in 1917.
Vacant - The Congregation was de facto suspended shortly after the election of Pope Sixtus V (himself one of its members as Cardinal Felice Peretti, O.F.M.Conv.) for one and a half year; its activities were renewed in February 1587.
The Congregation of Borders (Confini), (Sacra Congregatio de confinibus Status Ecclesiastici), was created by Pope Urbain VIII's Constitution Debitum of October 1, 1627 to watch over the territorial integrity of the Ecclesiastical State and prevent the alienation of lands and seigniories, as well as to combat contagions. After having ceded its competence in sanitary matters to the Consulta it became a modest secretariat (mentioned as such in the Notizie of 1818), attached to the Secretariat of State and Administrative and border police officer. Entrusted to a Curia officer appointed by the Cardinal Secretary of State, the Secretariat of the Borders was definitively suppressed at the death of the last holder on March 18, 1856.
The Congregation ceased to function as cardinalitial congregation with the death of its last Cardinal member Neri Maria Corsini in 1770, altough it continued to exist as a congregation composed of non-cardinalitial members with a secretary as its main official. In 1814, Pope Pius VII reduced its rank to a simple secretariat subordinated to the Secretariat of State. It was finally abolished after the death of the last secretary, Pier Filippo Boatti, in 1856.
Pope Julius II granted particular favors to the faithful who contributed to the re-edification of of the Vatican Basilica. Pope Clement VII created a college of sixty members to which he entrusted the responsibility of building and administering the basilica. Pope Clement VIII replaced that college with a Congregation of Cardinals, which had the archpriest of the basilica as prefect. The powers of this congregation, which had increased successively, were reduced by Pope Pius IX in 1863. The administration of the goods of the basilica was regulated by the norms established by Pope Benedict XIV with the constitution Quanta curatura of November 25, 1751; and by Pope Pius X's apostolic constitution Sapienti ConsiIio of June 29, 1908. The congregation was reduced in rank by Pope Paul VI with the apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae of August 15, 1967, which established that "the respectable Fabbrica di S. Pietro, continued to care for all that concerns the basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, according to the prescriptions of the constitution Sapienti Consilio of June 29, 1908, and in concordance with the chapter of that basilica" (n. 132). The Fabric became part of the Palatine Administration.
With the apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus of June 28, 1988. Pope John Paul II established, among other things, that the "Fabric of Saint Peter's basilica continue, according to its own laws, to take care itself of all that concerns Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles for the conservation and decorum of the building, for the internal discipline of the caretakers, and for the pilgrims who visit the temple". To the Fabric of Saint Peter's is given, according to the statute, a cardinal president, assisted by a delegate. One and the other invested with the respective charges in the Committee with Administration. Within the Fabric operates the "Study of the Vatican Mosaic", which began its artistic activity under Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590), and was erected canonically under Pope Benedict XIII (1724-1730). The delegate is at the same time president of "Study of the Vatican Mosaic". The cardinal president of the Fabric is the protector of the Archconfraternity of the SS.mo Sacramento of the Vatican basilica, and the delegate is the primicerius.
It was founded by Pope Sixtus V, in the constitution Immensa aeterni Dei, January 22, 1588, to supervise the liturgical and the non-liturgical ceremonies of the Roman Curia. It is in charge of ceremonies in the papal chapel and palace and of those carried out by cardinals. It settled questions of precedence among the cardinals, prelates, and diplomatic representatives to the Holy See (can. 254). The dicastery was suppressed in 1968.
The origins of the Apostolic Chancery are to be sought out in the very ancient office, going back to the IV century, of the notaries of Holy Roman Church, headed by the primicerius who was in turn aided hy the secundicerius. They were in charge of drawing up the pontifical acts and, in their quality as scriniarii, also supervised the archives. Towards the end of the VIII century the duties of the primicerius passed to the Librarian who, under Pope Gelasius II (1118-1119) was a cardinal. This office disappeared in order to make way, under Pope Lucius II (1144-1145), for a cardinal chancellor. From the time of Pope Honorius III (1216-1227) onwards, the chancellorship was entrusted to persons not of cardinalitial rank and the name was changed to vice-chancellor. This name was preserved when, under Pope John XXII (1316-1334), the supervision of this office was definitively placed in the hands of a cardinal. It was only under Pope Pius X (1903-1914) that the name of chancellor of Holy Roman Church was restored. His cardinalitial title is always the church of S. Lorenzo in Damaso as mandated by Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) in the constitution Etsi ad singula issued on July 5, 1532 .
From the end of the XIV century, the vice-chancellor has been assisted by a Regent, or Lieutenant. Side by side with the ancient notaries (who were called protonotaries from the XIV century on). We find in the XIII century, for the drawing up of bulls and because of the increased activity of the chancery, a numerous staff of abbreviatores, correctores, scriptores, and plumbstores.
From the XV century on, the competence of the chancery was much reduced through the introduction of the Apostolic Brief and the creation of the secretariat of briefs. At the same time the functions of the protonotaries were almost completely absorbed by the abbreviatores litterarum apostolicarum, who were organized in various colleges (de parco majore et minore, de prima visione), and who, under the supervision of the vice-chancellor and the regent, also enjoyed e train jurisdictional functions. Other colleges, such as the sollicitatores etc., with less important duties, were suppressed in large part in 1678 by Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689) and Pope Pius VII (1800-1823), and then completely eliminated in 1901 by Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903). The abbreviatores de parco majore remained until the reform of Pope Pius X and were suppressed by the apostolic constitution Sapienti Consilio of June 29, 1908. Their duties were once more turned over to the college of the apostolic protonotaries de numero participantium. The chancery drew up and despatched the decretal letters of canonization the pontifical bulls dealing with appointments to consistorial benefices and offices, the erection of new dioceses and chapters and certain other affairs of major importance, on instructions from the congregations or by order of the Sovereign Pontiff personally.
The office was abolished by the motu proprio Quo aptius of February 27, 1973, issued by by Pope Paul VI (1963-1978). Its functions were transferred to the secretariat of State.
Bibliography. Niccolò del Re, La Curia romana : lineamenti storico giuridici. 4th ed. aggiornata ed accresciuta. Città del Vaticano : Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998, p. 445-446.
Webgraphy. The Apostolic Chancery, in English, Wikipedia.
Traces of the office of Datarius are found as early as the pontificate of Pope Martin V (1417-1431). Its origin goes back to the distinction which was introduced at the time of the Western Schism between the signature on Pontifical Letters and the marking of the date, which was entrusted to a specific person.
Under Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484), the duties of the Datarius were expanded and, starting with the end of the XV century, he was at the head of a special office for the preparation and the dating of the grants of favors, especially of non-consistorial benefices reserved to the Holy See, and of certain dispensations. Beginning with the XVII century, the office was usually entrusted to a cardinal with the title of pro-datarius.
The pro-datarius had under his jurisdiction the sub-datarius, and a considerable staff. Leo XIII, on February 6, 1901 organized and divided the business of the Datary into three sections, each with its own respective head or prefect: the section for the conferring of benefices, the section for matrimonial dispensations, and the administrative section.
Through the apostolic constitution Sapienti Consilio issued on June 29, 1908, Pope Pius X (1903-1914), turned over to the new S.C. of the Sacraments the faculty for matrimonial dispensations; however, he made the Datary independent of the Chancery in the despatching of papal bulls, and he determined its field of competence in the following terms: "This office is under the charge of a Cardinal of Holy Roman Church, who will henceforth have the title of Datarius. To the Datary was entrusted the sole task of examining the qualifications of those who apply for non-consistorial benefices reserved to the Apostolic See (or which have fallen within its jurisdiction); to draw up and despatch the Apostolic Letters for the conferring of these benefices; to grant dispensations from conditions required for the conferring of such benefices; to supervise the pensions and obligations which the Sovereign Pontiff may have imposed in the conferring of the aforementioned benefices."
With the Code of Canon Law (promulgated on May 27, 1917, effective on May 19, 1918), the Apostolic Reservations were extended to the universal Church and constituted universal law. The cardinal datary was one of the palatine cardinals. The office was suppressed by Pope Paul VI (1963-1978), with the apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae, August 15, 1967.


Christopher Stokes filed suit against Emerson Electric Co. for injuries he sustained as a result of an allegedly defective condition at the Emerson plant.1 Emerson appeals an adverse judgment following a jury verdict. For the reasons assigned, we vacate and remand.
Stokes is a journeyman electrician and a ten-year employee of Carter Electric Company, an independent contractor that provided services to Emerson's plant in Philadelphia, Mississippi on a regular basis. Both Stokes and John Carter, the owner of Carter Electric, had worked on the site and were familiar with the plant. At the time of Stokes' accident Carter Electric was under contract with Emerson to install an emergency generator. Carter Electric had a scissor lift2 which it frequently used on the Emerson job site. When Carter Electric was not working on the Emerson plant, its scissor lift remained there unless needed on other Carter Electric jobs.
On the date of the accident, Stokes was dispatched to the Emerson plant to pick up the scissor lift and take it to another job site unrelated to its Emerson contract. Stokes located the scissor lift inside the press department at the Emerson plant and attempted to drive it down the nearest loading ramp. Stokes rode and controlled the scissor lift from the top of its platform which, at the time, was in its lowest position approximately five and a half feet off the ground. Stokes claims that approximately three quarters of the way down the ramp the scissor lift struck some rock or slag and veered off the ramp, injuring Stokes in the fall to the concrete below.
Suit was filed in state court against Emerson and Sky Climber, Inc., manufacturer of the scissor lift, for Stokes' injuries and his wife's loss of consortium. In due course the action was removed to the court a quo. Following discovery, Sky Climber was dismissed and a jury trial proceeded. Stokes testified about rock or slag on theramp, but he did not suggest to the jury, and does not contend in this appeal, that the existence of any obstacle rendered the ramp a dangerous condition. Rather, Stokes maintained that the ramp was defective because the four-inch angle irons lining its edge were incapable of preventing a scissor lift from falling off. Emerson responded that the primary cause of Stokes' injuries was his own negligence, contending that he should have used a forklift to guide or carry the scissor lift out of the building and should have used a ramp with a more gradual incline. At a minimum, Emerson insists, Stokes should have walked alongside the lift, and not ridden it, as it went down the ramp. The jury returned a verdict for $700,000 in favor of Christopher Stokes and $150,000 in favor of his wife and assigned 60% comparative fault to Stokes. The district court entered final judgment in the amounts of $280,000 and$60,000 in favor of Stokes and his wife, respectively.
After the verdict, Emerson renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, basing same on the proposition that Stokes' employer had control over the work that gave rise to the injury and knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition of the ramp, thus barring any claim by its employee under Mississippi law as interpreted by this court in Hill v. International Paper Co.3 In the alternative, Emerson moved for a new trial, asserting that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on either of the two exceptions to owner liability described in Hill. The district court denied both motions. Emerson timely appealed.
The Mississippi Supreme Court eliminated the open and obvious exception in Tharp v. Bunge Corp,15 prescribing that a premises owner may no longer evade its duty with respect to open and obvious conditions, but must adhere to Mississippi's general rule for premises liability. The owner must make the premises reasonably safe and, failing that, must appropriately warn the invitee of the danger. Initially, it was unclear what effect, if any, Tharp might have on the "intimately connected" and "knowledge of danger" exceptions to owner liability which applied to cases involving independent contractors. Tharp was worded broadly and appeared to apply in all premises liability cases, including those involving independent contractors.
We conclude that the "intimately connected" exception does not apply. Stokes was not performing work under the contract at the time of the accident and the risk of falling off the ramp was not inherent in the performance of Carter Electric's services. The intimately connected exception charges the plaintiff-contractor with constructive knowledge of defects closely related to the project for which he has been hired. The contractor should know of the defects because of his familiarity with the work site and expertise in how to safely accomplish the project. Therefore, the exception applies only in instances in which the contractors' employees were injured while engaged directly in labor that was dedicated exclusively to the contractors' jobs and in the areas where those jobs must be performed. The cases applying this exception teach accordingly. In Hill, the contractor's employee was injured while carrying equipment through the sheet finishing room in which the contractor was upgrading structures on its paper cutting machines. In Jones, the contractor's employee was killed while installing a dewatering system necessary to complete the contract.20 Similarly, in Jackson Ready-Mix Concrete v. Sexton,21 the contractor, an electrician, was injured while he was, in furtherance of his duties under the contract, climbing a pole over which he had exclusive control.
The present case is distinguishable from Vu and the other cases applying the intimately connected exception. These cases relied on the fact that the purpose of the contractor's presence on the involved premises and at the site of the accident was to perform under the relevant contract. The purpose of Stokes' visit to the Emerson plant was not to perform electrician services under the contract between Carter Electric and Emerson, nor was Stokes on the ramp for that purpose. It is undisputed that Stokes went to the plant to retrieve Carter Electric equipment which Emerson allowed to be stored on the premises. Carter Electric was notperforming any services for Emerson requiring use of the scissor lift or the ramp in question. Clearly, Stokes' injuries did not arise out of and were not intimately connected to Carter Electric's electrical services to and for Emerson.
We must conclude and hold that there was ample evidence before the trial court that Stokes had actual knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition he claims caused his injury. The district court therefore erred by declining to instruct the jury on Mississippi's knowledge of the danger exception in premises liability cases involving independent contractors. Accordingly, we must VACATE the judgment appealed and REMAND for a new trial.
Betty Stokes joined her husband and claimed a loss of consortium.
A scissor lift is a platform that can be raised to allow the electrician to work at higher levels. Unlike forklifts and other industrial trucks, the scissor lift is powered by an electric motor triggered by toggle switches which allowed it to go right or left, forward or backward. These controls are designed for maneuvering into locations where the platform may be raised. There is no brake control; the brake engages automatically when the forward/backward toggle switch is in neutral. The scissor lift has two slots marked "Lift Here Only" for forklift carrying.
121 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 1997).
Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285 (5th Cir. 1994).
Id. at 1300-01, quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc).
Lubbock Feed Lots, Inc. v. Iowa Beef Processors, 630 F.2d 250 (5th Cir. 1980).
United States v. Scott, 159 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 1998).
Mississippi Winn-Dixie Supermarkets v. Hughes, 156 So. 2d 734, 735 (1963).
Caruso v. Picayune Pizza Hut, Inc., 598 So. 2d 770 (Miss. 1992); McGovern v. Scarborough, 566 So. 2d 1225 (Miss. 1990).
Diamond Int'l Corp. v. May, 445 So. 2d 832 (Miss. 1984).
United Roofing and Siding v. Seefeld, 222 So. 2d 406, 408 (Miss. 1969), quoting 41 Am. Jur. 2d Independent Contractors § 28 (1968).
Magee v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 551 So. 2d 182, 185 (Miss. 1989).
Seefeld, 222 So. 2d at 408, quoting 41 Am. Jur. 2d Independent Contractors § 28.
Hill, 121 F.3d at 176.
641 So. 2d 20 (Miss. 1994).
701 So. 2d 774 (5th Cir. 1997).
Hill, 121 F.3d at 175, citing Jones, 701 So. 2d at 782. In Hill, we also noted that the Jones court invoked the corollary to the intimately connected exception established in Magee as an alternative bar to recovery. Hill, 121 F.3d at 175.
Hill, 121 F.3d at 175, citing Jones, 701 So. 2d at 783.
Preliminarily, Stokes asserts that neither exception applies because he was not an independent contractor at the time of the accident. He claims that he was an ordinary business invitee because he was only in the building to retrieve a piece of equipment which was maintained on Emerson's premises for the mutual benefit of Emerson and Carter Electric. Stokes did not submit this proposition to the district court, nor did he object to the applicability of Hill on this basis. Further, Stokes did not object to a jury instruction which charged that Carter Electric was an independent contractor and that its knowledge was imputed to Stokes. Arguments not raised in the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal. FDIC v. Mijalis, 15 F.3d 1314, 1326-27 (5th Cir. 1994).
Jones, 701 So. 2d at 783.
235 So. 2d 267 (Miss. 1970).
___ So.2d ___, 2000 WL 798408 (Miss. June 22, 2000).
Id. at ___ _ ___, 2000 WL 798408 at *8-9.
Jackson Ready-Mix Concrete, 235 So. 2d at 270, citing 38 Am Jur. Negligence § 97 (1941) ("The basis of the inviter's liability for injuries sustained by the invitee on the premises rests on the owner's superior knowledge of the danger, and as a general rule, he is not liable for an injury to an invitee resulting from a danger which was known to the invitee or which was obvious or should have been observed by the invitee in the exercise of reasonable care ... .").
General Tire & Rubber Company v. Darnell, 221 So. 2d 104 (Miss. 1969) (employee of contractor injured on elevator which was taking him to second floor work site); Mississippi Power & Light Company v. Nail, 211 So. 2d 815 (Miss. 1968) (employee of contractor killed when he strayed into area of high voltage equipment which specifically was not to be serviced under the contract); Mississippi Chemical Corp. v. Rogers, 368 So. 2d 220 (Miss. 1979) (employees of contractor injured while walking on transit roof after having been cautioned to walk on designated walkways only).
Emerson also contends that the dangerous condition was not the ramp, but the fact that Stokes drove the scissor lift down the ramp. Stokes has not alleged that this was a dangerous condition for which the premises owner was liable, however, and has not attempted to recover on any theory that depends on this conclusion. Further, the act of driving the scissor lift down the ramp was not a condition of the premises. The danger created by Stokes' allegedly negligent behavior is more appropriately considered, and indeed was considered, in determining his comparative fault.
Q: [The SkyClimber Operating and Safety Instructions Manual] says, "Do not drive near a dropoff." Were you near a dropoff at the time of this accident?
Q: [If you had read this and other warnings in the manual] would you have on the day of this accident drove the scissor lift down that ramp?
Stokes: If I had read that, I probably wouldn't have.


D.C. Law Library - § 22–3312.04. Penalties.
(a) Any person who violates any provision of § 22-3312.01 shall be fined not less than $250 and not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or imprisoned for a period not to exceed 180 days, or both. Civil fines, penalties, and fees may be imposed as alternative sanctions for any infraction of the provisions of § 22-3312.01, pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 8.
(b) Any person who violates any provision of § 22-3312.02 or § 22-3312.03 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or imprisonment not to exceed 180 days, or both.
(c) In addition to the penalties provided in subsection (a) of this section, a person convicted of violating any provision of § 22-3312.01 may be required to perform community service as provided in § 16-712.
(d) Any person who willfully places graffiti on property without the consent of the owner shall be subject to the sanctions in subsection (a) of this section.
(e) Any person who willfully possesses graffiti material with the intent to place graffiti on property without the consent of the owner shall be fined not less than $100 or more than $1,000.
(f) In addition to any fine or sentence imposed under this section, the court shall order the person convicted to make restitution to the owner of the property, or to the party responsible for the property upon which the graffiti has been placed, for the damage or loss caused, directly or indirectly, by the graffiti, in a reasonable amount and manner as determined by the court.
(g) The District of Columbia courts shall find parents or guardians civilly liable for all fines imposed or payments for abatement required if the minor cannot pay within a reasonable period of time established by the court.
This section is referenced in § 42-3141.08.
“(a) Any person who violates any provision of § 22-3312.01 shall be fined not less than $250 or more than $5,000, or imprisoned for a period not to exceed 1 year, or both.
The 2013 amendment by D.C. Law 19-317 substituted “and not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01” for “or more than $1,000” in (a); and substituted “not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01” for “not to exceed $500” in (b).
For temporary (90 days) amendment of this section, see § 234 of the Criminal Fine Proportionality Emergency Act of 2013 (D.C. Act 20-45, April 1, 2013, 60 DCR 5400, 20 DCSTAT 1300).


Marc A. Powell of Powell, Brewer & Gough, L.L.P., Wichita, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael C. Stewart of Chubbuck Smith Rhodes Stewart & Elder, P.L.L.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KELLY, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and LUCERO, Circuit Judge.
Federated Rural Electric Insurance Company ("Federated") appeals a judgment by the district court requiring it to reimburse United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. ("USF&G") for half of the defense costs expended by USF&G on behalf of their mutual insured, Alfalfa Electric Cooperative ("Alfalfa"). At the outset of this appeal, the parties presented a question of undecided Oklahoma law that implicated important state policy considerations. We therefore certified the following question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court: "Will Oklahoma apply the doctrine of equitable subrogation to require two insurance companies to share the cost of defending a mutual insured, where there is no contract between the insurance companies to do so?" The supreme court answered the question in the negative, and consequently we reverse.
This litigation was sparked by a grass fire that burned across the Oklahoma and Kansas countryside. Windy and extremely dry weather combined with the hot underside of a truck to ignite a fire in Woods County, Oklahoma, that for several days burned on more than 80,000 acres in three counties. An employee for O&M Powerline Construction, Inc., ("O&M") drove the culprit vehicle over dry vegetation during the installation of a power line pole for Alfalfa pursuant to a contract between the two companies. Not long after the fire stopped burning, affected landowners sued O&M and Alfalfa in state court. Alfalfa was insured under policies issued by two different carriers--USF&G and Federated--and that circumstance gave rise to this case.
USF&G provided the primary insurance(1) contract, according to which it promised to pay sums--with a maximum limit of $1 million--that Alfalfa became obligated to pay for property damage caused by any accident involving the use of a covered auto. Under the policy, USF&G was duty-bound to defend Alfalfa in any suit seeking such damages, but this duty ceased once USF&G paid its insurance limit.
By contrast, the Federated policy was for excess insurance.(2) It stated that "[w]ith respect to a hired or a non-owned automobile, this insurance shall be excess insurance over any other valid and collectible insurance."(3) (Appellant's App. Doc. 6 at 55.) Like USF&G, Federated was required to defend Alfalfa in any case to which its policy applied, and like USF&G, Federated's liability for property damage was limited to $1 million.
When affected landowners sued Alfalfa in state court, Alfalfa first forwarded the summons and petition to its excess insurer Federated. Federated did not defend Alfalfa at that time and requested that USF&G, as primary insurer, undertake the defense. USF&G hired a law firm to defend Alfalfa, eventually spending $197,051 before withdrawing its defense and depositing $1 million--its maximum liability--in the district court. From that point forward, Federated funded all of Alfalfa's legal defense.
USF&G then filed a complaint in federal district court seeking declaratory relief against Federated. Specifically, USF&G sought reimbursement for the legal costs it paid before withdrawing from the state case. The district court concluded that although no contractual right to contribution existed between the two insurers, USF&G was entitled to reimbursement under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Federated appealed that decision, and we exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
When the facts are undisputed, this Court reviews the district court's interpretation of an insurance contract de novo. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 157 F.3d 800, 802 (10th Cir. 1998). Because this is a diversity case, the district court was required to apply the substantive law of the forum state, Kansas. See Boyd Rosene & Assocs., Inc. v. Kan. Mun. Gas Agency, 174 F.3d 1115, 1118 (10th Cir. 1999). Under Kansas choice-of-law rules, the contract law of Oklahoma, where the insurance contracts were entered into, controls. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Allen, 941 P.2d 1365, 1372 (Kan. 1997).
Insurance carriers "ha[ve] the duty to use the utmost good faith in the disposition of claims made against [their] insured." United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 285 F.2d 579, 581 (10th Cir. 1960). "The duty to defend is separate from, and broader than, the duty to indemnify" and arises whenever the facts present "the potential of liability under the policy." First Bank of Turley v. Fid. & Deposit Ins. Co. of Md., 928 P.2d 298, 303 (Okla. 1996) (footnotes omitted).
"The question here thus narrows to whether contribution will lie between two insurance companies when each has a policy containing a defense agreement. The question has been answered in the negative, and we believe properly so, in a number of cases. The duty to defend is [p]ersonal to each insurer. The obligation is several and the carrier is not entitled to divide the duty nor require contribution from another [a]bsent a specific contractual right."
Id. at 926 (quoting Tri-State Ins. Co., 285 F.2d at 582). Nevertheless, the published cases did not address equitable subrogation. To the contrary, this Court in Tri-State Insurance Co. specifically stated that the plaintiff "[did] not claim by subrogation." 285 F.2d at 582.
under Oklahoma law an excess insurer is not obligated to bear liability for the costs of defense until the primary policy is exhausted. Accordingly, an excess insurer is not liable to the primary insurer under the doctrine of equitable subrogation for defense costs incurred prior to exhaustion, even though the claim against insured is for an amount in excess of the primary policy.
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp., No. 96,172, 2001 WL 1195810, at *6 (Okla. Oct. 15, 2001).
The district court had concluded that the Oklahoma Supreme Court would probably permit an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs. Although there are legitimate public policy justifications for that conclusion, see United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp., 78 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1176 (D. Kan. 1999) ("'[A]s a matter of public policy, courts should be demanding that insurers give prompt defense of claims to policyholders rather than to tolerate the shifting of responsibility with such impunity.'" (quoting 7C John Alan Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice § 4691, at 278 (Walter F. Berdal ed., 1979))), the district court's judgment was, in hindsight, incorrect.
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for such other and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
*. This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.
1. "Primary insurance provides immediate coverage for the insured upon the occurrence of a loss or the happening of an event which, under the terms of the policy, gives rise to immediate liability." United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co., No. 96,172, 2001 WL 1195810, at *2 (Okla. Oct. 9, 2001).
2. "An excess insurance policy is one which by its terms provides coverage that is secondary to the primary coverage; there is usually no obligation to the insured until the primary coverage limits have been exhausted." Id.
When both this insurance and the other insurance apply to the loss on the same basis, whether primary, excess or contingent, Federated shall not be liable under the policy for a greater proportion of such loss than the applicable Limit of Liability under this policy for such loss bears to the total applicable Limit of Liability of all valid and collectible insurance against such loss.


text:
[327 U.S. 161, 162] Mr. Walter E. Meyer, pro se.
Mr. William Stanley, of Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Petitioner is the owner of a substantial number of shares of stock of the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company. In April 1934 he filed a claim for the benefit of St. Louis Southwestern in the bankruptcy proceedings which previously had been instituted under 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 49 Stat. 911, 11 U.S.C. 205, 11 U.S.C.A. 205, for the reorganization of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. The claim filed was a claim for a cause of action which St. Louis Southwestern allegedly had against the Rock Island. It amounted to many millions of dollars and arose out of an alleged conspiracy between the Rock Island and others to control the St. Louis Southwestern to their own interest, in breach of their fiduciary relationship to St. Louis Southwestern, and in violation [327 U.S. 161, 163] of the antitrust laws. It was stated in the claim that a demand on the board of directors of St. Louis Southwestern to file the claim was not made because it would be futile, the dominant stockholder and the directors of St. Louis Southwestern being parties to the conspiracy. In May 1935 the trustees of Rock Island objected to the claim by general denial. In December 1935-about a year and a half after the claim had been filed-St. Louis Southwestern filed a petition for reorganization under 77 of the Bankruptcy Act. Shortly thereafter the petition was approved and a trustee was appointed. Thereupon the trustees of Rock Island further objected to the claim filed by petitioner on the ground that all causes of action belonging to St. Louis Southwestern had become vested in its bankruptcy trustee and could no longer be asserted in the Rock Island proceeding by petitioner. The claim was referred to a special master who, in February 1942, filed his report, concluding that petitioner should not be allowed to prosecute the claim. Two years later the District Court approved the special master's report and disallowed the claim. On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 529. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because the problem presented is an important one in bankruptcy law.
The Circuit Court of Appeals held that a stockholders' derivative suit commenced before the corporation's petition under 77 had been approved could not be continued thereafter without permission of the reorganization court. It relied on the provisions of 77 which gave the reorganizing court exclusive jurisdiction of the debtor and its property1 and which give a trustee appointed in those [327 U.S. 161, 164] proceedings the title and powers of other bankruptcy trustees. 2 But the exclusive jurisdiction granted the reorganization court by 77, sub. a, is that which bankruptcy courts have customarily possessed. 3 And the title and powers of the trustee are by 77, sub. c(2), assimilated to those of trustees in ordinary bankruptcy proceedings. Certainly, so far as the enforcement of claims are concerned, there is no indication that Congress adopted a different ule in proceedings under 77 than had long obtained in ordinary bankruptcy proceedings. Yet, if the view of the Circuit Court of Appeals were followed, any suit which had been brought by the corporation before its petition under 77 had been approved would be defeated when that event happened. That is not the rule in ordi- [327 U.S. 161, 165] nary bankruptcy proceedings. And it would be a radical change in the law to write that rule into 77.
We see no reason why there should be a different rule in the case of stockholders' derivative suits. They are likewise suits to enforce a corporate claim. They are one of the remedies which equity designed for those situations where the management through fraud, neglect of duty or other cause declines to take the proper and necessary steps to assert the rights which the corporation has. 11 The stockholders are then allowed to take the initiative and institute the suit which the management should have started had it performed its duty. The corporation is a necessary party. City of Davenport v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626. Hence, it is joined as a defendant. But it is only nominally a defendant, since any judgment obtained against the real defendant runs in its favor. The reasons of policy for holding that ordinary suits to enforce a corporate claim are not abated when the corporation is adjudged a bankrupt or when a receiver is appointed are equally applicable here. The claim sought to be enforced in a derivative suit may be an important asset of the estate. It might be lost to the estate through the operation of statutes of limitations, if the trustee or receiver were required to start anew. As in case of ordinary suits to enforce corporate claims, he should be allowed a choice to let the suit continue under the stockholders' auspices;12 to intervene in it;13 to start a new suit; or, in case he deems it more provi- [327 U.S. 161, 168] dent from the point of view of the estate to make a settlement of the claim or to reserve it for the reorganized company, to cause it to be abated. 14 He might conclude that the more provident course was to let the suit continue without interference. 15 That decision might be dictated by the speculative nature of the suit and the expense involved as Johnson v. Collier, supra, indicates. If the trustee will not sue and the stockholder cannot continue with the litigation, what might turn out to be a valuable claim might be lost to the estate not only through the operation of statutes of limitation, but in cases like the present through a discharge of the debtor. 16 The point is that the trustee or receiver, being in a position to take control of the litigation by reason of the fact that the cause of action has become a part of the estate, should have the opportunity to make the choice which is most advantageous to the estate. Cf. Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 309 U.S. 478, 483 , 60 S.Ct. 628, 630. The fact that the corporation is nominally a defendant should not lead to any different result. 17 That gives the suit only a difference in form, not a difference in substance. [327 U.S. 161, 169] We have in the present case not a stockholders' derivative suit filed before the bankruptcy of his corporation, but a claim filed in the bankruptcy proceedings of the alleged debtor (Rock Island) by a stockholder on behalf of his corporation, St. Louis Southwestern. If the claim were to be filed after the petition for the reorganization of St. Louis Southwestern had been approv d, it could be done only with the consent of the bankruptcy court. For it has exclusive authority to determine how causes of action which have become a part of the bankruptcy estate shall be enforced. See Porter v. Sabin, 149 U.S. 473 , 13 S.Ct. 1008; Klein v. Peter, 8 Cir., 284 F. 797. But since the claim was filed before the petition of St. Louis Southwestern under 77 had been approved, no reason is apparent why that event should have a different effect on the claim than it would have had on a suit which had been previously instituted by or on behalf of the corporation. Indeed, the facts of this case emphasize the reason for giving the trustee an opportunity to choose what course to take. The claim was filed in April 1934, a year and a half prior to the time when the petition of St. Louis Southwestern under 77 had been approved. We are told that the time for filing of claims against the Rock Island expired over eleven years ago. If the claim were now disallowed, the trustee of St. Louis Southwestern, if he desired to assert it, would be faced with the task of obtaining leave to file out of time. 18 There is, therefore, the same reason for allowing [327 U.S. 161, 170] the estate to obtain the benefits of the claim which has been filed, as there would be for allowing the trustee the opportunity to take over a stockholders' derivative suit previously instituted.
The order disallowing the claim will be reversed. On remand of the cause the District Court will allow the claim to be amended by joining St. Louis Southwestern or its trustee. If it is established that the continued prosecution of the claim will be inconsistent with the plan of reorganization of St. Louis Southwestern or the administration of its affairs, the claim should be disallowed. If it is not so established, the claim should then be considered on its merits.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ Footnote 3 ] Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & T. Co., 282 U.S. 734, 737 , 738 S., 51 S.Ct. 270, 271, 272; Ex parte Baldwin, 291 U.S. 610, 615 , 54 S.Ct. 551, 553; Continental Illinois Nat'l Bank v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 294 U.S. 648 , 682-684, 55 S.Ct. 595, 608, 609; Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 309 U.S. 478, 483 , 60 S.Ct. 628, 630. And see Thompson v. Terminal Shares, Inc., 8 Cir., 104 F.2d 1. Cf. In re Standard Gas & Electric Co., 3 Cir., 119 F.2d 658, 661, arising under 77B, 11 U.S.C.A. 207.
[ Footnote 4 ] Sec. 70 of the Bankruptcy Act, 52 Stat. 879, 11 U.S.C. 110, 11 U. S.C.A. 110. The same is true under 77 by reason of the provision in 77, sub. c(2), supra note 2.
[ Footnote 5 ] Sec. 11, sub. e of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. 29(e), 11 U.S.C. A. 29, sub. e, authorizes a receiver or trustee, within two years subsequent to the adjudication or within such further period of time as federal or state law permits, to institute proceedings in behalf of the estate upon any claim against which the statute of limitations had not expired at the time of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.
This provision is applicable to proceedings under 77, sub. l by reason of 77, sub. l, set forth in supra note 1.
[ Footnote 6 ] Sec. 11, sub. c, of the Bankruptcy Act, 52 Stat. 849, 11 U.S.C. 29(c), 11 U.S.C.A. 29, sub. c, provides that 'A receiver or trustee may, with the approval of the court, be permitted to prosecute as receiver or trustee any suit commenced by the bankrupt prior to the adjudication, with like force and effect as though it had been commenced by him.' This provision is likewise applicable to proceedings under 77, sub. l, supra note 1.
[ Footnote 7 ] And see Dauciger v. Smith, 276 U.S. 542 , 48 S.Ct. 344; Bluegrass Canning Co. v. Steward, 6 Cir., 175 F. 537, 543, 544; Paradise v. Vogtlandische Maschinen-Fabrik, 3 Cir., 99 F.2d 53, 55; Bennett v. Associated Theatres, 247 Mich. 493, 496, 226 N.W. 239; Griffin v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 119 Ga. 664, 46 S.E. 870.
[ Footnote 8 ] If the suit is continued by the bankrupt, the trustee is concluded by the judgment. Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U.S. 521, 524 , 525 S.; Paradise v. Vogtlandische Maschinen-Fabrik, supra note 7, 99 F.2d page 55.
[ Footnote 10 ] See Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. German Nat'l Bank, 8 Cir., 77 F. 117, 122, 123; Boston Elevated Ry. Co. v. Paul Boynton Co., 1 Cir., 211 F. 812, 822, 823; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Federal Bond & Mortgage Co., 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 950, 956. See 1 Clark on Receivers (2d ed., 1929) 614, 615.
[ Footnote 11 ] Glenn, The Stockholder's Suit, 33 Yale L.Journ. 580.
[ Footnote 12 ] Cf. American Steel Foundries v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., D.C., 231 F. 1003; Seagrist v. Reid, 171 App.Div. 755, 759, 157 N.Y.S. 979. And see 4 Cook on Corporations (8th ed. 1923) 748.
[ Footnote 13 ] Meyer v. Page, 112 App.Div. 625, 627, 98 N.Y.S. 739; Floyd v. Layton, 172 N.C. 64, 89 S.E. 998.
[ Footnote 14 ] Moreover, the stockholder's suit might so intimately affect the administration of the bankruptcy or receivership estate as to require that it be continued only under the auspices of the trustee or receiver. See Adler v. Seaman, 8 Cir., 266 F. 828, 835-837; Seaman v. McCulloch, 8 Cir., 8 F.2d 820, 825, 826.
[ Footnote 15 ] In re National Republic Co., 7 Cir., 109 F.2d 167, 171; McAnarney v. Lembeck, 97 N.J.Eq. 361, 127 A. 197.
[ Footnote 17 ] But see Coyle v. Skirvin, 10 Cir., 124 F.2d 934, 937, 938 ( receivership). The provision in 77, sub. j empowering the court to 'enjoin or stay the commencement or continuation of suits against the debtor until after final decree' obviously relates to suits where claims are asserted against the debtor, not where the debtor is made a nominal defendant for the purpose of obtaining a judgment in its favor.
[ Footnote 18 ] Sec. 77, sub. c(7) provides that the judge 'shall promptly determine and fix a reasonable time within which the claims of creditors may be filed or evidenced and after which no claim not so filed or evidenced may participate except on order for cause shown.' This is the equity rule (5 Collier on Bankruptcy (1944) p. 537) which permits the filing of claims out of time provided the claim is equitable, the claimant is not chargeable with laches, and the assets have not been distributed ( see Conklin v. United States Shipbuilding Co., C.C., 136 F. 1006, 1009, 1010; Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., 2 Cir., 198 F. 721, 740-742); and provided further that the late filing does not unduly delay the proceedings. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 347, 353.
[ Footnote 19 ] Sec. 2, sub. a(6) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. 11(a)(6), 11 U.S.C.A. 11, sub. a (6), grants the court power to 'Bring in and substitute additional persons or parties in proceedings under this Title when necessary for the complete determination of a matter in controversy.' See 1 Collier on Bankruptcy (14 ed. 1940), pp. 214-218.
[ Footnote 20 ] One of the grounds on which the Special Master based his recommendation for disallowance of the claim was that the claim was improperly filed in the first instance since the corporation was not made a party. But the District Court, like the Circuit Court of Appeals, proceeded on the ground that the claim could no longer be prosecuted after app oval of the petition for the reorganization of St. Louis Southwestern unless the bankruptcy court in that proceeding expressly authorized it.
[ Footnote 21 ] Cf. 14 Boston Univ.L.Rev. 802, 808.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.