Loveless v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

75 So. 7, 199 Ala. 587, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 226
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 5, 1917
StatusPublished

This text of 75 So. 7 (Loveless v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Loveless v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, 75 So. 7, 199 Ala. 587, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 226 (Ala. 1917).

Opinion

This cause was submitted and considered under new rule 46, and the opinion of the court was prepared by

Mr. Justice Mayfield.

[588]*588The complaint seeks recovery under the federal Employers’ Liability Act, but the proof fails to bring the case within the influence of said act, under the authority of Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Winters, 242 U. S. 353, 37 Sup. Ct. 170, 61 L. Ed. —, and our own case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Carter, 195 Ala. 382, 70 South. 655. Hence the trial court did not err in giving the general charge for defendant.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Mayfield, Somerville, and Thomas, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Winters
242 U.S. 353 (Supreme Court, 1917)
Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Carter
70 So. 655 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 So. 7, 199 Ala. 587, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loveless-v-louisville-nashville-railroad-ala-1917.