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,…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This action is for single damages for killing plaintiff’s horse in the village of Turney. Plaintiff recovered and defendant appeals.
I. The negligence charged and relied Upon is, that defendant allowed quantities of salt to be deposited on and .near its track, at or near the station, and allowed the same to remain so deposited after it knew the salt was there, or, by reasonable care and diligence, might have known it; that, by reason of this alleged negligence, plaintiff’s horse was attracted on the track of defendant’ s railway and killed. The answer was a general denial. At the close of…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Thomas v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- New York & Maryland Line R. Co. v. WinansSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Freeman v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Wilson v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Main v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
3Cited by8 opinions
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. HaasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Moorshead v. United Railways Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Moorshead v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Kirk v. Norfolk & W. R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
- Burger v. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.