Chouteau v. Steamboat St. Ahthony
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Elms. I. The “first paragraph of the plaintiff’s instruction is erroneous, because it assumes that the boat was necessarily lia-bie, if the captain undertook to carry and deliver the bank notes and failed to deliver a part of them, although the petition does not charge any consideration, and the testimony does not show any. II.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Elms. I. The “first paragraph of the plaintiff’s instruction is erroneous, because it assumes that the boat was necessarily lia-bie, if the captain undertook to carry and deliver the bank notes and failed to deliver a part of them, although the petition does not charge any consideration, and the testimony does not show any. II. The second paragraph is erroneous : 1. Because it announces a general proposition of law, no more applicable to this case than to any other. 2. Because it assumes, that the captain or clerk of a boat can bind the boat, by the simple…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was a proceeding begun by the plaintiff against the defendant, for an alleged breach of a contract, by which the defendant stipulated to carry from St. Louis and deliver at Pell’s Landing, in Illinois, the sum of $572 in bank notes. The statement charged, that the said sum in bank notes was delivered on board said boat, in a sealed package, to the clerk, in. pursuance to said agreement, and that a portion of the said sum was never delivered. No consideration was alleged in the contract for the transportation of the package. The delivery of the package to the clerk of the boat was proved,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Root v. New York Central Sleeping-Car Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Whitmore v. Steamboat CarolineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Hapgood Plow Co. v. Wabash Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895