# Reply Brief — Long v. Illinois Central Railroad

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_0197%3A4

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Reply Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1962
- **Citation:** 369 U.S. 858

## Text

_ LIBRARY,

COURT.U. SB.

Ne C6 | ‘
ae: IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE. UNITED STMT
- ‘ | OCTOBER TERM, 1961.

~ LAWRENCE J. LONG, ©. =

*
e *
.
. -
. e
- e
° : ° ‘
e . . » .
. e af
°°
* —
£;. . - :
- *
- a *
.
*
.

.
=

. .
, a
ot e .
’ ” -
.
. . . e
e *
. - e
« mf
*. e * * *
. . t
e ee ‘ oe.
1 $
‘ e
e .
= *
*. © *
? .
- 2 .
. F . 5
uv
.
* e Z
* - *
-

5 al a
ena mee
Sad
: n
@ :
« os”
* 2 m
“ -
° *
° ~~
. af .
f%
. . o ;
2, ‘ :
“*
,
-%*
. wd ‘
eo

. s Pe
” *
. “
° .
- -
‘ é
- °
. - *
» © - oo
. ° dl
-) .
a . °
.
-*
/
*
a°
*
.
.
-
.
. .
> i
Sad .
P i
;
- * *
.
.
-
2s
*
>.

.

«

IN THE .

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

OCTOBER TERM, 1961.

LAWRENCE J. LONG:
W i . Petitioner,

v.

P* ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY,
, ° @ Corporation, .
° Pt Respondent. a ho

J me ha

» ens of Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

l ‘apologize for the delay in’ the filing of this Reply ;
Brief. Apparently, the Brief of the Railroad Company
wae delivered during my absence in, delivering some lee-

tures to the College of Law at the University of West

Virginia, so that it was April 20 when I first sagg it~ Brief

Ordinarily, no fteply wold be Hecessary. ~ However, iti
thix case the Brief ofthe Railroad Company unfortunately:
céntains some errors which could bye tiisteadjne to this

4

Court if not corrected.
Upon page 4. reference is made to an affidavit ‘of one

John, F. Jack~on, with refergenee being made to aan Ave li-

;
«ff

-tional Abstract. We were not aware of the filing of any

. P
i a —

7? = =

: eS
“ue ‘h Addition Abstract an this Court, and. none has oon |
served Upon, Us. "However we have searched the record
and find: that an ‘affidavit ofthis’ individual was attached
to ani early motion by, the Railroad Company inthe Cir- :
enit Court of Champaign County, That motion was argued

armel deniea. Thereafter, the Railroad Company filed “an

i Xuswer which appears in the “Abstract, pages 110-122, and
the Jackson affidavit was not refiled. Certain portions of

* this Answer, the plaintiff moved fo strike ( Abst. 123, 124).

and dur Notice of Appeal “preserved the error of the trial
court in failing to’ strike the objectionable conelus lows Con:
tained in such Answer,

The defendant railroad took no CLOSS- appeal from the
order of She trial court denying its motion to disiniss the

action, which was supported -by the Jackson affidavit.

Under Illinois law, the-filing of an, answer after a motion

has heer denied waives any, matters contained: iv the mo-

tiow. Thus it was stated in W. T. Iverson & (o., Ine. ve

pia 2 Mauufacturing Company, 18 Til. App. 2d 404 at
y, TaDIN. EB. 2d 615: Mae ‘

* * * the original pleading ceases to he a part of

- the record. being in effect abandoned or Withdrawn,

with ‘the result that the. subsequent proceedings in

the case are to be regarded as based upon the amended

plead ding,which will:not be aided by anything in the’
prior pleadings. ion Aisi iting cases.)

es the same effeet ir Brandeis Machinery & Supply Co.
AL MeNeely General Cemtracting & Equipment Com
pany, Tafe., Is TH. App. 24 396 at 399, 152 X..E. 2d. 890,

_ pointing out that euch matters are ttwaived hy pleading

overs ; ; (a : te Ps

The Railroad ( ‘ompany. citing Allen v. Meyer, 14 TIL
284 42 N..E. 2d 576. argues that where heth parties move
for aw summary pudcanenit. sneha judgment should: be en-

Gu.

oe .
* : , - —

‘tered in favor of one or the other... That case is careful
to point out. (14 TH. 2d 24 at 292) that this result follows
only: “Wherein is presented no genuine isstle as 10 any.
naterial fact * ris ; ‘

It ix Our feeling that a sammary judgment, upon “this
record, probably could be entered tor the plaintiff? for the
following. reasons: Lawrence Long ‘had paissed satixtac-
torily every Holmgren W orsteds test: given to him until
Tod: in. 1954 Dr. Marvel, of Clinton, disqualitied him not
on the hasis of that type of test, but on the basis of an
[ :
7 bg — .
. mn!
. R ‘ ‘
i 2 ‘
. * :
‘ |
‘ .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_0197%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.