Bay v. Merrill & Ring Logging Co.

Ninth Circuit

Bay v. Merrill & Ring Logging Co.

220 F. 295, 136 C.C.A. 277, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2461

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 1, 1915·No. No. 2447·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

GILBERT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). We may assume from the evidence that the defendant in error was a common carrier; but it is clear that it was not engaged in interstate commerce. In that respect the facts in the case are identical with those which were before this court in the recent case of Nordgard v. Marysville & Northern Railway Company, 218 Fed. 737, 134 C. C. A. 415, and we need not add to the discussion that was there had.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GILBERT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). We may assume from the evidence that the defendant in error was a common carrier; but it is clear that it was not engaged in interstate commerce. In that respect the facts in the case are identical with those which were before this court in the recent case of Nordgard v. Marysville & Northern Railway Company, 218 Fed. 737, 134 C. C. A. 415, and we need not add to the discussion that was there had.

The judgment is affirmed.

Bay v. Merrill & Ring Logging Co., 220 F. 295, 136 C.C.A. 277, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2461 (9th Cir. 1915).

Pincite

220 F. 295 (Bay v. Merrill & Ring Logging Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related