Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Stojanowski

Citations

• 191 F. 720
• 112 C.C.A. 310
• 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4980

Syllabus

<p>1. Corporations (§ 662*) — Foreign Corporations — Doing Business in State.</p> <p>A foreign railroad company, which maintains an office in New York, where it employs agents to solicit business and sell tickets, is doing busit ■ ness in.-the state in such sense as to be subject to service and suit therein.</p> <p>‘ [Ed. Nate. — For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2544-2570; Dec. Dig. § 662.*</p> <p>Foreign corporations doing business in state, see note to Wagner v. J. & G. Meakin, 33 C. C. A. 585; Ammons v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 72 C. C. A. 622.]</p> <p>2. Evidence (§ 352*) — -Train Sheets.</p> <p>A train sheet kept by a train dispatcher, In the course of his regular duty, from reports made to him by telephone by the operators at the several stations as the trains arrived and departed therefrom, upon -which sheet he based his orders for the movement of trains, is admissi- , - ble in evidence to show the time when a particular train passed through . a station.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Dec. Dig. § 352.*]</p> <p>3. Appeal and Error (§ 1056*) — Review—Exclusion op Evidence — Prejudicial Error.</p> <p>■The erroneous exclusion of evidence was prejudicial, where its admission would have tended to create a conflict of evidence on a material issue, which, with such evidence excluded, did not necessarily exist.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 1056.*]</p>