Court Opinion

ID: 9833700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:57:18.794213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.993592
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In Its motion for rehearing, appellant’s counsel has called attention to the fact that the case of W. U. Tel. Co. v. Brown, cited above, arose before the act of Congress placing telegraph companies under the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Law was enacted. A reference to the original report of that case confirms that statement. However; we do not feel that this necessitates a different ruling upon the question as to whether or not that act of Congress was applicable to this case. What was said upon the former appeal we think sufficiently disposes of that particular question.
[7] Appellant also insists that we erred in failing to sustain its objection to the judgment because it was excessive. It is a suffi-. cient answer to that contention to say that the appellant’s brief does not present that particular assignment in a manner which entitled it to consideration.
The motion is overruled.