Middleton v. Southern Pac. Co.
Decision Date | 08 December 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 6696.,6696. |
Citation | 61 F.2d 929 |
Parties | MIDDLETON v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Gowan Jones, of El Paso, Tex., for appellant.
Del W. Harrington, of El Paso, Tex., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
Middleton prosecutes this appeal from a verdict directed against him on the ground that his case is not one under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59). The District Judge thought the case ruled by our opinion on the former appeal. Southern Pacific Co. v. Middleton, 54 F.(2d) 833, 834. We think so too.
On the former trial it appeared that prior to engaging in the work which had called them to Globe, Middleton and Haynes had been doing work in interstate commerce; they had, in the words of Haynes "quit their regular job, the job that called them to Arizona, to go to Globe." We held that this job, from which upon the uncontradicted testimony of Haynes, they were returning to El Paso by way of Bowie, was not "interstate transportation, nor work so closely related to such transportation as to be practically a part of it."
On this trial Middleton offered additional testimony to the effect that on the morning of the accident, Haynes told him that he did not ship the instruments back to Bowie "because we would need them on our trip back that day." While on the former trial he testified: "I do not recall making any stops on our return trip from Globe; if we made a stop I do not recall it." On this trial he testified that they were looking at the condition of the track, and that they stopped, or at least slowed down to a stop, at several places.
Further, though he testified that he did not know Mr. Haynes' purpose, was to reach Bowie in time to take the passenger train to El Paso, he testified: He also said that El Paso was his headquarters, and that he had never spent a Sunday away from there. Haynes testified:
On this testimony Middleton urges that though the work which called them to Globe and beyond was not within the act, the fact that he expected to resume the same work after he got back to Bowie, and the fact that he ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maxie v. Gulf, M. & O. R. Co.
... ... 333; B. & O.R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521, 69 ... L.Ed. 419; Middleton v. Southern Pac. Co., 61 F.2d ... 929; Mirkowicz v. Reading Co., 84 F.2d 537, ... certiorari ... ...
-
Siegel v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
... ... 595, 73 S.W.2d 401; Howard v. M. & O. Ry ... Co., 335 Mo. 304, 73 S.W.2d 272; Cox v. Mo. Pac. Ry ... Co., 61 S.W.2d 965; Phillips v. Union Term. Ry ... Co., 328 Mo. 240, 40 S.W.2d 1046; ... V. Ry. Co., 43 F.2d 692; Pope v. Utah-Idaho Cent ... Ry. Co., 54 F.2d 575; Middleton v. So. Pac ... Co., 61 F.2d 929; Birmingham Belt Ry. Co. v ... Dunlap, 58 F.2d 951; Drew v ... commerce. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Morrison, 3 ... F.2d 986; Southern Ry. Co. v. Jacobs, 81 S.E. 99; ... Reap v. Hines, 273 F. 88; Davis v. Dowling, ... 284 F ... ...
-
McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
... ... Barnes, 220 S.W. 490; Cape Girardeau & Thebes Bridge ... Term. Railroad Co. v. Southern Ill. & Mo. Bridge Co., ... 215 Mo. 294, 114 S.W. 1084; Kleinberg v. Kinealy, ... 207 S.W. 237; ... Co. v ... Gray Co., 241 U.S. 339, 36 S.Ct. 558, 60 L.Ed. 1030; Mo ... Pac. Ry. Co. v. Aeby, 275 U.S. 426; Atlantic ... Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Davis, 279 U.S. 37; ... L.Ed. 304; Wise v. Ry. Co., 43 F.2d 692; Pope v ... Railroad Co., 54 F.2d 575; Middleton v. Southern ... Pac. Co., 61 F.2d 929. The plaintiff is bound by his own ... testimony and the ... ...
-
Stogsdill v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... has been categorically restated and applied in the following ... cases among others: Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial ... Accident Commission, 251 U.S. 259, 263; Industrial ... Accident ... Cox v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 332 Mo. 991, ... 61 S.W.2d 962; Middleton v. Southern Pac. Co., 61 ... F.2d 929; Southern Ry. Co. v. O'Dell, 252 F ... 540.] Under the ... ...