1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 13 F.2d
  5. 13 F.2d 389 (1926)
 

NOFTZ v. BALTIMORE & O. RY. CO.

No. 4584.

13 F.2d 389 (1926)

NOFTZ v. BALTIMORE & O. RY. CO.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 30, 1926.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Don J. Young, of Norwalk, Ohio (Young & Young, of Norwalk, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Alfred A. Frazier, of Zanesville, Ohio (Frazier & Frazier, of Zanesville, Ohio, and King, Ramsey, Flynn & Pyle, of Sandusky, Ohio, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges.

DONAHUE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

Section 9017 of the General Code of Ohio has no application to the facts of this case. This plaintiff and his fellow workmen were employed by the defendant for the sole purpose of repairing defective cars. If a railroad company is required to furnish repairmen cars that are not defective, upon which to perform the duties of their employment, then defective cars can never be repaired. The statute requires a...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases