Court Opinion

ID: 3875384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:08:33.611136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:06.714509
License: Public Domain

The cases cited below, in my opinion, abundantly demonstrate that Exceptions 14 and 15 should be sustained: Chesapeake  Ohio R. Co.v. Kelly, 241 U.S. 485, 36 S.Ct., 630, 60 L.Ed., 1117, L.R.A., 1917-F, 367; L.  N.R. Co. v. Holloway, 246 U.S. 525,38 S.Ct., 379, 62 L.Ed., 867; Chesapeake  O.R. Co.v. Gainey, 241 U.S. 494, 36 S.Ct., 633, 60 L.Ed., 1124;Johnson v. R. Co., 163 N.C. 431, 79 S.E., 690, Ann. Cas., 1915-B, 598; and that Exceptions 19, 20, and 22 should be sustained, Boldt v. R. Co., 245 U.S. 441, 38 S.Ct., 139,62 L.Ed., 385; Seaboard Air Line R. v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492,34 S.Ct., 635, 58 L.Ed., 1062, L.R.A., 1915-C, 1, Ann. Cas., 1915-B, 475; Chicago, R.I.  P.R. Co. v. Ward,252 U.S. 18, 40 S.Ct., 275, 64 L.Ed., 430; Chesapeake O.R. Co. v. De Atley, 241 U.S. 310, 36 S.Ct., 564,60 L.Ed., 1016.
I do not deem it necessary to consider the other exceptions. Let the exceptions referred to be incorporated in the report of the case.
                  ORDER ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT