Brown v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Aureal from Clinton Circuit Court, Hon. James M. Sandusky, Judge. Tlie case and facts are stated in the opinion of the court. I. Defendant was not charged with having placed the salt on the track. It was not bound to suspect or anticipate that a stranger would place it there. There is no evidence that defendant’s servants knew that the salt was on the track. Qrafton v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 580 ; Schooling r>. Railroad, 75 Mo. 518 ; Harlan v. Railroad, 18 Mo.
Read the full summary
Aureal from Clinton Circuit Court, Hon. James M. Sandusky, Judge. Tlie case and facts are stated in the opinion of the court. I. Defendant was not charged with having placed the salt on the track. It was not bound to suspect or anticipate that a stranger would place it there. There is no evidence that defendant’s servants knew that the salt was on the track. Qrafton v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 580 ; Schooling r>. Railroad, 75 Mo. 518 ; Harlan v. Railroad, 18 Mo. App. 483 ; Gilliland v. Railroad, 19 Mo. App. 411. (1) The court erred in giving the first instruction prayed by plaintiff. Wood on By. Law,…
1Concurrence
Philips, P. J.,
Concurring-. — I concur in the result of the foregoing opinion, as I do not wish to be understood as approving so much of the opinion in Main v. Railroad (18 Mo. App. 390), as contains the language : “As this can only be done under section 790, Revised Statutes, 1879.” The right to maintain such action was not conferred by said section. It existed by virtue of the general statute respecting railroad corporations. And while section 790 authorizes the lease, it at the same time continues the antecedent liability of the lessor, the same as if the section authorizing the lease had…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Main v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885