Case ID: f_256/html/0988-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLTON v. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    February 15, 1919.)
    No. 1672.
    In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk; Edmund Waddell, Jr., Judge. Action by Evelyn Charlton, administratrix of the estate of James H. Charlton, deceased, against the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    Certiorari denied. 249 U. S. -, 39 Sup. Ct. 388, 63 L. Ed. -.
    J. Winston Read, of Newport News, Va., for plaintiff in error. William Leigh Williams, of Norfolk, Va., for defendant in error.
    Before PRITCHARD and KNAPP, Circuit Judges, and CONNOR, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

This case was before this court at the November term, 1917, and, upon full argument and careful consideration, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Pritchard, judgment for the present plaintiff in error was reversed (247 Fed. 34, 159 C. C. A. 252), and a petition for rehearing was denied February 8, 1918. Upon the second trial upon the same evidence introduced at the first, the District Judge directed a verdict for defendant, and to this the plaintiff excepted and assigned the giving such direction as error. Counsel for plaintiff in his brief does not suggest that the evidence in the second trial was in any respect different from the first, nor does he suggest any controlling authority upon the case since the decision was rendered. We can add nothing to the well-considered opinion of Judge Pritchard, nor perceive any aspect of the case not discussed and disposed of therein. The present writ of error appears to be an invitation to the court to reconsider and reverse the conclusions reached on the first writ of error. The judgment is affirmed.