Conner v. Southern Ry. Co.

D. Tennessee

Conner v. Southern Ry. Co.

1 F.R.D. 577, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1989

District Court, D. Tennessee·Decided January 4, 1941·No. No. 111·Published

Opinion

TAYLOR, District Judge.

This is before me again on defendant’s motion to strike the second count of the complaint.

The motion is well taken, since there is again a commingling of common law and statutory negligence. To restate a ground of negligence does not add to the pleading, even if the rules permitted a commingling of grounds.

Let the declaration be amended to meet the objection, if the amendment is filed within the week of January 6, 1941.

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

TAYLOR, District Judge.

This is before me again on defendant’s motion to strike the second count of the complaint.

The motion is well taken, since there is again a commingling of common law and statutory negligence. To restate a ground of negligence does not add to the pleading, even if the rules permitted a commingling of grounds.

Let the declaration be amended to meet the objection, if the amendment is filed within the week of January 6, 1941.

Conner v. Southern Ry. Co., 1 F.R.D. 577, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1989 (tennessed 1941).

Pincite

1 F.R.D. 577 (Conner v. Southern Ry. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.