Coley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
Conceding the complaint may be interpreted as alleging arbitrariness or fraud on the part of defendant Lodge and mistake on the part of the Railroad Company in adopting the roster in question, which the defendants say is entirely too liberal, the record is wanting in sufficiency to support the allegation. Without this, it would seem that the plaintiffs are remitted to a pursuit of their protest, through the proper channels, or to an action for- damages against their own spokesman. Ryan v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., 267 Mich., 202, 255 N. W., 365. See Reilly v. Hogan, decided by the New York Supreme…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hartley v. Brotherhood of RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Ryan v. New York Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Donovan v. TraversMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Franklin v. Penna.-Reading Seashore LinesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1937
- James v. Sartin Dry Cleaning Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
3Cited by6 opinions
- Elder v. New York Cent. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1945
- Madera v. Monongahela Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Lammonds v. Aleo Manufacturing CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Steele v. Louisville N. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1944
- Gainey v. Local 71, International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.