Here & Frerichs Chemical Co. v. Line
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. The reply is a departure from the cause of action stated in the petition, and defendant’s motion to strike it out ’should have been sustained. Stephen on PI. 354; Gould’s PI. 28; 1 Bouv. Law Diet., 460; R. S. Mo. 1889, sec. 2052, p. 543; State v. Grimsley, 19 Mo. 177; Mortland v. Holton, 44 Mo. 64; Philibert v. Burch, 4 Mo. App. 470; Magruder v. Admire, Id. 133; Suman v. Ireman, 3 Id. 596; Hillv.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. The reply is a departure from the cause of action stated in the petition, and defendant’s motion to strike it out ’should have been sustained. Stephen on PI. 354; Gould’s PI. 28; 1 Bouv. Law Diet., 460; R. S. Mo. 1889, sec. 2052, p. 543; State v. Grimsley, 19 Mo. 177; Mortland v. Holton, 44 Mo. 64; Philibert v. Burch, 4 Mo. App. 470; Magruder v. Admire, Id. 133; Suman v. Ireman, 3 Id. 596; Hillv. Mining Go., 119 Mo. 9; Lanits v. King, 93 Id. 513; Mohney v. Heed, 40 Id. 99; Edwards on Bail, secs. 333, 532; Story on…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
The petition alleges that on September 24, 1890, it (a corporation), delivered to defendant (acommon carrier of freight operating aline or lines of railroad between St. Louis and New York), at St. Louis, and defendant accepted and agreed to carry and deliver one case of chemicals to be transported to New York, and there delivered to Schoellkopf, Hartford & Maclagan, and the failure on the part of appellant to carry and deliver said freight, as per its agreement.
The answer was, first, a general denial, and, second, a plea of special contract and compliance on its part. The clause of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Scovill v. GlasnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Spurlock v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Gifford v. Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Gashweiler v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Cantu v. BennettTexas Supreme Court · 1873
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rhodes v. Holladay-Klotz Land & Lumber Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Hazell v. ClarkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Crosby v. EvansSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- Herf & Frerichs Chemical Co. v. Lackawanna LineMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Herf & Frerichs Chemical Co. v. Lackawanna LineMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900