Bay v. Merrill & Ring Logging Co.
220 F. 295 | 9th Cir. | 1915
Lead Opinion
(after stating the facts as above). We may assume from the evidence that the defendant in error was a common carrier; but it is clear that it was not engaged in interstate commerce. In that respect the facts in the case are identical with those which were before this court in the recent case of Nordgard v. Marysville & Northern Railway Company, 218 Fed. 737, 134 C. C. A. 415, and we need not add to the discussion that was there had.
The judgment is affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the case of Nordgard v. Marysville & Northern Railway Company, above referred to.
