Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Salvadore COMANDO, Plaintiff in Error, v. ERIE R. CO., Defendant in Error
299 F. 1022·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1924
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Salvadore COMANDO, Plaintiff in Error, v. ERIE R. CO., Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 2, 1924.)
No. 3987.
Error from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio; Paul Jones, Judge.
Benjamin D. Holt, of Cleveland, Ohio (John Ruffalo, of Youngstown, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Cook, McGowan, Eoote, Bushnell & Lamb, of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant in error.
Before DENISON and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges, and HICKENLOOPER, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This case must be affirmed on the authority of Industrial Commission v. Davis, 259 U. S. 182, 42 Sup. Ct. 489, 66 L. Ed. 888. Giving plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there was an expressed, though revocable, intention to return the engine to interstate service at an unknown future time, when the repairs should be finished, we 'think this does not make a substantial distinction between the cases.