Legal Opinion
American Laundry MacHinery Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. R.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided February 9, 1931No. 3785PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROSS, PJ.
What then in this case were the activities of the Railroad Company as performed through its agent?
John C. Bayer, upon whom service for the Railroad was made, testified that he was “General Agent of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company in Cincinnati.”
The door of the office maintained in the City of Cincinnati by the Railroad bore the following inscription: “Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., Colorado and Southern Railway Co., Ft. Worth and Denver City Ry. Co., General Agent.”
A number of personal cards of the General' Agent and his subordinates were introduced in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dahl v. ColletteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Hedrick v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1939
- Dahl v. ColletteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938