ST. LOUIS, SAN FRANCISCO & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.

MAUD SMITH, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF M. T. SEALE, DECEASED

Citator

Cited By

• N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1922)
  …board Air Line Ry. v. Renn, 241 U. S. 290, 293. “The facts constituting the tort were the same, whichever law gave them that effect.” Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Koennecke, 239 U. S. 352, 354. See also St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry. Co. v. Smith, 243 U. S. 630. Of course an argument can be made on the other side, but when a defendant has had notice from the beginning that the plaintiff sets up and is trying to enforce a claim against it because of specified conduct, the reasons for the statute of limitati…
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co., 121 F.2d 561 (8th Cir. 1941)
  …ight turn out. * * * ‘The facts constituting the tort were the same, whichever law gave them that effect.’ Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Koennecke, 239 U.S. 352, 354, 36 S.Ct. 126, 60 L.Ed. 324. See also St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas R. Co. v. Smith, 243 U.S. 630, 37 S.Ct. 477, 61 L.Ed. 938. Of course an argument can be made on the other side, but when a defendant has had notice from the beginning that the plaintiff sets up and is trying to enforce a claim against it because of specified conduct, the reason…
• McALLISTER v. Sloan, 81 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1936)
  …rent law by the amendment, but the facts constituting the tort were the same whichever law gave them that effect.” See, also, Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Renn, 241 U.S. 290, 293, 36 S.Ct. 567, 60 L.Ed. 1006; St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 243 U.S. 630, 37 S.Ct. 477, 61 L.Ed. 938, affirming St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. Smith (Tex.Civ.App.) 171 S.W. 512; Manhattan Oil Co. et al. v. Mosby (C.C.A.8), supra, 72 F.(2d) 840, 843. The case at bar is not one where the plaintiffs failed to state enoug…

Authorities Cited

• Missouri v. Wulf, 226 U.S. 570 (U.S. 1913)
• ST. Louis v. Seale, 229 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1913)
• Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Renn, 241 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1916)
• Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Koennecke, 239 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1915)