Barrie v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Jítm. J. W. McElhmney, Judge. (1) Under the law and evidence, the cause was properly submitted to the jury. Guenther v. Railroad, 108 Mo. 18; Kellny v. Railway, 101 Mo. 67; Lynch v. Railroad, 111 Mo. 607; Bunyon v. Railway, 127 Mo. 12; Chamberlain v. Railway, 133 Mo. 587; Baird v. Railway, 146 Mo. 265; Lamb v. Railway, 147 Mo. 171; Schmidt v. Railway, 149 Mo. 270 ; Morgan v. Railroad, 159 Mo. 262; Cooney v. Railway, 80 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Jítm. J. W. McElhmney, Judge. (1) Under the law and evidence, the cause was properly submitted to the jury. Guenther v. Railroad, 108 Mo. 18; Kellny v. Railway, 101 Mo. 67; Lynch v. Railroad, 111 Mo. 607; Bunyon v. Railway, 127 Mo. 12; Chamberlain v. Railway, 133 Mo. 587; Baird v. Railway, 146 Mo. 265; Lamb v. Railway, 147 Mo. 171; Schmidt v. Railway, 149 Mo. 270 ; Morgan v. Railroad, 159 Mo. 262; Cooney v. Railway, 80 Mo. App. 226; Hickman v. Railway, 47 Mo. App. 65; McCormack v. Monroe, 64 Mo. App. 197., (2) The instructions when read together…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts as above) — Defendant demurred to plaintiff’s evidence which the court denied. The case was submitted to the jury and a verdict was rendered for plaintiff.' From an order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, plaintiff appealed. The court granted the new trial on the following ground set forth in the motion therefor, to-.wit :
“First. Because the court erred in giving improper and illegal instructions on behalf of the plaintiff over the objections of defendant.
“Second. Because the court erred in refusing proper and legal instructions asked on behalf of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Morgan v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Boyd v. Wabash Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Klockenbrink v. St. Louis & Meramec River RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Powell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Klockenbrink v. St. Louis & Meramec River RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Barrie v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Semple v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Bensiek v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Leitner v. Columbia Rwy., Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1928