Court Opinion

ID: 9306929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:17:48.241665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:57.307317
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, District Judge
(after stating tbe facts). In my opinion, the conclusions of the special master in this case, as above set forth, are correct. The decision of the supreme court in the case of Mosher v. Railway Co., 127 U. S. 390, 8 Sup. Ct. 1324, is conclusive of the question at issue here. There can be no distinction in principle between that case and the case at bar. The decision of the supreme court is clearly based on the ground that the agent of the Hot Springs Railway Company at Hot Springs was not the agent of the defendant company in that case, which necessarily decides and controls the question here, and determines that the agent of the Blue Ridge & Atlantic Railroad Company at Tallulah Falls was not the agent of the receivers of the East Tennessee, A aginia & Georgia Bailroad Company. The terms of the contract signed by the intervener, "by. which it was agreed that the ticket should not be good for return passage unless the holder identified himself in the presence of the agent at the point named, are substantially the same as those signed by the plaintiff in the Mosher Case, supra, and the views expressed by the supreme court apply to and govern the facts of this case so fully that further discussion of the matter would be superfluous. The report of the special master is confirmed, and the exceptions overruled.