
    PERRY v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
    No. 994.
    District Court, E. D. Tennessee.
    Aug. 29, 1939.
    Allen, Nelson & Allen, of Elizabethton, Tenn., for plaintiff.
    Susong & Parvin, of Greeneville, Tenn., for defendant.
   TAYLOR, District Judge.

The motion to strike count 4% of the amended declaration because it states a new cause of action barred by the statute of limitations will be denied. This new count is supplemental and amplifies the acts charged as having created the original cause of action. Therefore it relates back to the same cause, and is not, either alone or taken with the other acts, charged as creating the cause of action new.

The cases cited in support of the motion are contra, in my opinion.  