Minis v. Penn. R.R. Co.

Boyd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A separate motion for reargnment of No. 30 (which was the plaintiff’s appeal) was filed on the ground that no reference was made or consideration given in the opinion to the claim of these appellants (plaintiffs below) for restoration to the Northern Central By. Co. of the rebates shown by the evidence to have been paid during the years 1890-1893. While it is true that one of their objections to the decree stated in the order for the appeal by these appellants was “in so far as said decree omits or refuses to decree repayment 1o the Northern Central Bailway Company of the several sums of money purporting to be shown as paid by said corporation to and received by the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Bailroad Company in Defendants’ Exhibit Comptroller No. 2, together with legal interest,” etc., and ihey were briefly referred to in the part of the brief relating ⁵¹³ to the plaintiffs’ appeal, we did not understand that they were being seriously pressed in this case.

The hill does not claim them or mention them, and although it may he that the plaintiffs did not know of them until informed by the answers of the defendants, and the evidence, if they desired or intended to claim them it was only fair to the lower Court, as well as to the defendants, to amend the bill. Neither the opinion nor the