Witting v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, George W. Lubke, Judge. The motion to dismiss should have been sustained, as no copy, of the complaint was served on the defendant, and the summons was fatally defective in failing to state “the nature of the suit.” Laws Mo: 1883, p. 104; Hill v. Railroad, 90 Mo. 105-6; Gates n.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, George W. Lubke, Judge. The motion to dismiss should have been sustained, as no copy, of the complaint was served on the defendant, and the summons was fatally defective in failing to state “the nature of the suit.” Laws Mo: 1883, p. 104; Hill v. Railroad, 90 Mo. 105-6; Gates n. Eastland, 89 Mo. 13; Haley v. Railroad, 80 Mo. 112; Rev. Stat., 1879, ■ sect. • 2858. The carrier is prima facie exempt when he produces the contract and shows that the shipment was taken at “owner’s risk,” and that the goods were “marble at owner’s risk of breakage,” etc. The…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, J.
This suit was instituted before a justice of the peace on the following statement.
“ St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company,
“To Theo. J. Witting (formerly Reichenbach), Dr.
“ To damages in negligently breaking soda apparatus shipped May 2, 1884, from Oswego, Kansas, to St. Louis, Missouri____$200.00”
It is conceded that there was not sufficient service of summons upon the defendant company, and that the company did not appear and defend before the justice, but suffered judgment by default. From this judgment the company appealed to the circuit court, and there moved to dismiss the action on…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. ReevesSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Butts v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Davis v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Gates v. TustenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Levering v. Union Transportation & InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Nelson v. Great Northern Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1903
- Terre Haute & Logansport Railroad v. SherwoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Estes v. Denver & Rio Grande RailroadSupreme Court of Colorado · 1910
- Hance v. Pacific Express Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Hurst v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.