Court Opinion

ID: 9827209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:17:05.674787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:26.372948
License: Public Domain

*286ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
In this motion it is insisted on behalf of defendant in error, among other things, that we were in error in treating the case as involving the maintenance and operation of machine and repair shops. The criticism is probably just. While the petition does complain of the erection and operation of machine and repair shops, as well as a roundhouse, coal bins and water tank, it would seem from the charge of the court, that there was nothing to submit to the jury as to machine and repair shops. Such shops were probably not involved in the ease. But in our opinion this can make no difference in the result of the case in this court. That the opinion was not confined to machine and repair shops is shown by the following extract: “We are of the opinion, however, that the case of machine and repair shops and the like stands upon a different footing.” The charge of the court does submit the question of the operation of a switch yard and roundhouse, and of water tanks and coal bins— some of which at least fall within the category of “the like.”
With this explanation, the motion for a rehearing is overruled.

Filed February 20, 1906.