Powell v. Sherwood
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Eranklin Circuit Court. — Hon. Rudolph Hirzel, Judge. (1) The record proper, that is, the petition, answer and reply, show that the intestate came to his death after the Act of February 9, 1897, took effect, and the facts stated show that but for the provision in said law, plaintiff would have no right of recovery.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Eranklin Circuit Court. — Hon. Rudolph Hirzel, Judge. (1) The record proper, that is, the petition, answer and reply, show that the intestate came to his death after the Act of February 9, 1897, took effect, and the facts stated show that but for the provision in said law, plaintiff would have no right of recovery. The question of the constitutionality of said act is therefore before the court irrespective of the question whether the bill of exceptions was properly filed. The Act of February 9, 1897, is illegal, unconstitutional, and void, because: (a) Said act attempts to…
1Per curiam
The following opinion by Valliant,
J., in Division One, is adopted as the opinion of the Court in Banc. Burgess, O. J., Robinson, Brace and Gantt, JJ. *610concur; Marshall, J., concurs in all except paragraph 1; Sherwood, J., has the privilege of filing a separate opinion here-. after.
YALLIANT, J.
Suit for damages for the alleged negligent killing of plaintiff’s husband by defendant’s servants..
Petition is to the effect that defendant is the receiver, appointed by United States Circuit Court, in charge of and operating the St. Louis, Kansas City and Colorado railroad; that on July 31, 1897,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- United States v. WiltbergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. HumesSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Central Bank of Washington v. HumeSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- McNulta v. LochridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Turner v. Cross and Eddy, ReceiversTexas Supreme Court · 1892
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. LightheiserIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
- Stiffelman v. AbramsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1983
- Shohoney v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Strottman v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Railroad Commission v. Alabama Great Southern R. R.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1913
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.