Legal Opinion

Wood v. Chicago, S. F. & C. R.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Decided June 4, 1889PublishedCited by 8 opinions

On Motions to Strike Out Parts of Petitions.

1Opinion of the CourtThayer, J.

The questions argued by counsel on the submission of the motions to strike out parts of the petitions do not properly arise, because the clause of the contracts making the engineer’s decision final and conclusive as to the amount and classification of work done is not pleaded in the petitions; and the contracts themselves, which are attached as exhibits, form no part of the record, according to the view that is taken in this state. As these petitions are framed, the allegation that the engineer’s estimates were fraudulent, collusive or erroneous is redundant matter, and might be properly…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Herrick v. Estate of BelknapSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
  2. Kistler v. Indianapolis & St. Louis RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Grant, Alexander & Co. v. Savannah, Griffin & North Alabama RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874
  4. Alton, Mount Carmel, & New Albany Railroad v. NorthcottIllinois Supreme Court · 1853
  5. Starkey v. De GraffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Cook v. FoleyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
  2. United States v. Pine River Logging & Improvement Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
  3. Mayer v. East Side Logging Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Levin v. Northwestern Nat. Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa · 1906
  5. Texas Star Flour Mills Co. v. MooreDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1910

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API