Case ID: neb_114/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Eberly, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. A. Knight, appellant, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, appellee.
    Filed February 18, 1926.
    No. 23543.
    Appeal from the district court for Douglas county: William A. Redick, Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Smith, Schall, Howell, Howard & Sheehan, for appellant.
    
      Byron Clark, Jesse L. Root, J. W. Weingarten, C. W. Krohl and Kenneth F. Burgess, contra.
    
    Heard before Morrissey, C. J., Day, Good, Thompson and Eberly, JJ.
   Eberly, J.

This is a companion case of McCaffrey Bros. Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., ante, p. 382, and is an appeal from a judgment based upon the identical facts as' appear in the last named case. The cases were tried as one in the district court and separate judgments were entered after the receipt of all the evidence. They were combined and submitted on the same basis in this court. The rules of law applicable to .the controversy in this action are the same as are set forth in the case of McCaffrey Bros. Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., supra.

It follows therefore that the judgment of the district eourt must be, and is,

Affirmed.