Gray v. Payne
Opinion
1. The plaintiff’s petition contained two counts, the first under the Federal employer’s liability act, the second under the State law. The injury occurred while the plaintiff, a railroad employee, was engaged with other employees in demolishing an old trestle which was a part of a.n abandoned spur-track. This spur-track was not a part of [554] any other track, served no purpose, and performed no function in connection with the operation of the railroad, and was not intended for future úse in its operation. Held-. Not a case within the Federal employer’s liability act. Payne v. Demott, 26 Ga. App. 314 (106 S. E. 9); Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Winters, 242 U. S. 353 (37 Sup. Ct. 170, 61 L. Ed. 358, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 54).
2. As to all the other points in the record, the case is controlled by the decision of this court when the case was previously here on the same allegations and substantially the same evidence, and under authority of that decision the judgment of nonsuit is affirmed. Gray v. Hines, 25 Ga. App. 794 (104 S. E. 925).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
109 S.E. 179 (Gray v. Payne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.