CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY CO., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
KATHERINE LINSTEAD, EXECUTRIX, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY CO., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
KATHERINE LINSTEAD, EXECUTRIX, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
14 F.2d 1021
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1926)
Caution
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
We are unable effectively to distinguish the facts of this ease from those of Hull v. Philadelphia, etc., Ry., 252 U. S. 475, 40 S. Ct. 358, 64 L. Ed. 670, an opinion which apparently was not brought to the attention of the trial court. It thus becomes necessary to reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion as to whether an amendment pursuant to the rule of the Kinney Case, 260 U. S. 340, 43 S. Ct. 122, 67 L. Ed. 294, can be allowed in the trial court, if now desired.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
De Bellis v. United States, 22 F.2d 948 (7th Cir. 1927)
-
Reese v. White, 25 F.2d 65 (8th Cir. 1928)
-
Ware v. United States, 309 F.2d 457 (8th Cir. 1962)
Authorities Cited
- N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1922)
- Hull v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 252 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1920)