AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN R.R. v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS, 355 U.S. 6 (1957)

Syllabus

U.S. Supreme Court

AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN R.R. v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS, 355 U.S. 6 (1957) 355 U.S. 6

AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS. No. 258.
Decided October 14, 1957.*

 148 F. Supp. 399, affirmed.

[Footnote *] Together with No. 263, American Trucking Associations, Inc., v. Frozen Food Express, and No. 270, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Frozen Food Express et al., also on appeals from the same court.

Carl Helmetag, Jr. and Charles P. Reynolds for appellants in No. 258.

Rollo E. Kidwell and Peter T. Beardsley for appellant in No. 263.

Robert W. Ginnane and Charlie H. Johns, Jr. for appellant in No. 270.

Carl L. Phinney for the Frozen Food Express, appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 355 U.S. 6, 7

 



Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN R.R. v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS, 355 U.S. 6 (1957) 355 U.S. 6 AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS. No. 258.
Decided October 14, 1957.*
 148 F. Supp. 399, affirmed.

[Footnote *] Together with No. 263, American Trucking Associations, Inc., v. Frozen Food Express, and No. 270, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Frozen Food Express et al., also on appeals from the same court.

Carl Helmetag, Jr. and Charles P. Reynolds for appellants in No. 258.

Rollo E. Kidwell and Peter T. Beardsley for appellant in No. 263.

Robert W. Ginnane and Charlie H. Johns, Jr. for appellant in No. 270.

Carl L. Phinney for the Frozen Food Express, appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 355 U.S. 6, 7