Perry v. Southern Ry. Co.

E.D. Tennessee

Perry v. Southern Ry. Co.

29 F. Supp. 1006, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2217

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee

DecidedAugust 29, 1939

DocketNo. 994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 F. Supp. 1006 (Perry v. Southern Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perry v. Southern Ry. Co., 29 F. Supp. 1006, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2217 (E.D. Tenn. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, District Judge.

The motion to strike count 4% of the amended declaration because it states a new cause of action barred by the statute of limitations will be denied. This new count is supplemental and amplifies the acts charged as having created the original cause of action. Therefore it relates back to the same cause, and is not, either alone or taken with the other acts, charged as creating the cause of action new.

The cases cited in support of the motion are contra, in my opinion.

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

TAYLOR, District Judge.

The motion to strike count 4% of the amended declaration because it states a new cause of action barred by the statute of limitations will be denied. This new count is supplemental and amplifies the acts charged as having created the original cause of action. Therefore it relates back to the same cause, and is not, either alone or taken with the other acts, charged as creating the cause of action new.

The cases cited in support of the motion are contra, in my opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F. Supp. 1006, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-southern-ry-co-tned-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack