Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Ry. Co. v. Conlin, 162 U.S. 498 (1896)

U.S. Supreme Court

Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Ry. Co. v. Conlin, 162 U.S. 498 (1896)

Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway Company v. Conlin

No. 229

Argued March 17, 1896

Decided April 20, 1896

162 U.S. 498

Syllabus

Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway Co. v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490, affirmed and followed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 162 U. S. 499

U.S. Supreme Court

Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Ry. Co. v. Conlin, 162 U.S. 498 (1896)

Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway Company v. Conlin

No. 229

Argued March 17, 1896

Decided April 20, 1896

162 U.S. 498

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Syllabus

Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway Co. v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490, affirmed and followed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 162 U. S. 499

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, alleging error in the judgment of that court in affirming a judgment of the Circuit Court of Washington County, in that state wherein Francis Conlin, the defendant in error in this Court, recovered damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway Company, plaintiff in error. The only question presented for our consideration is whether there was error in denying the petition of the defendant company for removal of the cause into the circuit court of the United States. The record discloses a similar state of facts and allegations to that considered in the case (just decided) of Oregon Short Line and Northern Railway Company v. Skottowe. For the reasons there given, we find no error in the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, and it is accordingly

Affirmed.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.