Case Name: JACKSONVILLE, T. & K. W. RY. CO. v. CHATHAM NAT. BANK
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1895-02-13
Citations: 66 F. 879
Docket Number: No. 330
Parties: JACKSONVILLE, T. & K. W. RY. CO. v. CHATHAM NAT. BANK.
Judges: Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and BRUCE, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 66
Pages: 879–880

Head Matter:
JACKSONVILLE, T. & K. W. RY. CO. v. CHATHAM NAT. BANK.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 13, 1895.)
No. 330.
Assumpsit.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.
This was an action in assumpsit by the Chatham National Bank against the Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company, a corporation under the laws of Florida. • Tlie declaration contained 10 counts, some of which were upon notes made by the defendant to Charles C. Deeming, treasurer, and indorsed by him to plaintiff. Other counts alleged that the plaintiff, at the defendant’s request, released the Florida Construction Company from indebtedness in amounts specified, and that defendant thereupon promised to pay such indebtedness. The last three counts were the common counts for money paid out and expended, money lent, and on account stated. Various motions and demurrers were passed upon by the circuit court, and numerous amendments were made to the declaration. The defendant ultimately filed pleas to all the counts. To these pleas replications were filed, and, the issues being finally joined, the case was tried before a jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff for $86,291.41. Defendant made a motion for a new trial, and plaintiff entered a remittitur for $17,588.37. A new trial was denied, and judgment entered against the defendant for $68,693.04. Defendant then sued out this writ of error. There were 26 specifications of error. No opinion appears to have been filed by the circuit court upon any of the questions ruled upon.
T. M. Day, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
John Wurts, for defendant in error.
Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and BRUCE, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
A careful examination of the record in this case shows no error warranting the' reversal of the judgment of the circuit court, which judgment appears to be in accordance with, and fully supported by, the evidence. Judgment affirmed.