Court Opinion

ID: 9640913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:18:02.690072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:33.604121
License: Public Domain

WADDILL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I find myself unable to concur with the majority of the court in this ease, and dissent therefrom for the following reasons:
First. As stated in the majority opinion, this ease has been three times before this court on appeal from the decision of the District Court, the plaintiff appealing in each instance. From my view of the ease, the law thereof is settled by the first decision of this court (11 F.(2d) 65), that, in the absence of a substantial change in the testimony, this court is controlled by its decision on the-first appeal. I cannot bring myself to the conclusion that there is such new material evidence as warrants a departure from this rule. Linkous v. Virginian Ry. Co. (C. C. A. 4th) 242 F. 916, certiorari denied 245 U. S. 649, 38 S. Ct. 10, 62 L. Ed. 530; First National Bank of Oxford v. Old Dominion Trust Co. (C. C. A. 4th) 284 F. 128; Priester v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. A. 4th) 6 F.(2d) 878; Thompson v. Maxwell Land-Grant & R. Co., 168 U. S. 456, 18 S. Ct. 121, 42 L. Ed. 539; Illinois v. Illinois Central R. Co., 184 U. S. 77, 91 to 93, 22 S. Ct. 300, 46 L. Ed. 440; Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U. S. 436, 32 S. Ct. 739, 56 L. Ed. 1152.
Second. That the instruction No. 9, referred to in the majority opinion, with respect to the custom of others, as bearing upon the degree of care to be exercised by the defendant in the circumstances here, is erroneous; and
Third. That giving said instruction constituted error prejudicial to the plaintiff.