Nordgard v. Marysville & N. Ry. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Bay v. Merrill & Ring Logging Co.

    220 F. 295 (9th Cir. 1915)

    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 F. 737, 134 C.C.A. 415, and we need not add to the discussion that was there had. The judgment is affirmed.

  2. Campbell R. M. v. Chicago, M., St. P.

    42 F.2d 775 (W.D. Wash. 1930)   Cited 4 times

    Bay v. Merrill Ring Lbr. Co., supra. See, also, Nordgard v. Marysville N.R. Co. (D.C.) 211 F. 721, affirmed (C.C.A.) 218 F. 737; Id., 243 U.S. 36, 37 S. Ct. 374, 61 L. Ed. 578. The logs in issue had not entered commerce until committed for shipment.