Court Opinion

ID: 9834457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:36:44.685488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:15.810751
License: Public Domain

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Our attention has been called to the following statement made in our -original opinion, to wit:
“And specially pleaded that the railway company had no notice of* any trade made by the plaintiff with Eby, and that; although the railway company agreed with the plaintiff that if it was notified in time to divert the shipment from defendant’s line to St. Louis and then to Indianapolis,- etc., it would do so, yet in fact plaintiff never notified the railway company of his desire to have such diversion made.”
We have again carefully read the somewhat lengthy pleadings of defendant, and do not find the above pleading therein. The writer supposes that he gathered from the oral argument that such contention was made by the railway company, and inadvertently stated that it was so pleaded. But we do not think that such plea was essential to sustain the judgment for the defendant below, or here. The plea of general denial put in issue every fact alleged by plaintiff, except such as was admittéd. In the printed report the above statement will not appear, nor will any reference thereto be made on the motion for rehearing.
Appellant has filed an able and lengthy motion, and also a written argument on the motion, and we have carefully read and considered the same. Complaint is made that the trial court and this court evaded the consideration of the federal questions and issues involved in this appeal, and that this court has denied the appellant due process of law and the equal protection of the law, as guaranteed to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have earnestly and carefully considered said motion. We do not believe that we can improve the reasoning given in our original opinion to support our conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed. We do not see that this case, as here disposed of, involves' any federal question, or any question arising by virtue of the Carmack Amendment.
Hence the motion for rehearing is overruled.