Eckles v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Franklin Ferriss, Judge. (1) The court erred in admitting illegal evidence offered by plaintiffs. McFadden v. Railway,' 92 MO'. 350, 4 S. W. 689; O’Bryan v. Kinney, 74 Mo. 127; Railway v. Cleary. 77 Mo. 634; Wyrict v. Railway, 74 Mo. App. 415; Holten v. Railway, 61 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Franklin Ferriss, Judge. (1) The court erred in admitting illegal evidence offered by plaintiffs. McFadden v. Railway,' 92 MO'. 350, 4 S. W. 689; O’Bryan v. Kinney, 74 Mo. 127; Railway v. Cleary. 77 Mo. 634; Wyrict v. Railway, 74 Mo. App. 415; Holten v. Railway, 61 Mo. App. 208; Gerber v. Railway, 63 Mr. App. 147; Railway v. Clements, 49 S. W. 913; Railway v. Hassell, 58 S. W. 54; Ferry Co. v. Railroad, 128 Mo. 248, 27 S. W. 568, 30 S. W. 430; Steffen v. Railway, 156 Mo. 323, 56 S. W. 1125; Ward v. Railway, 158 Mo. 226, 58 S. W. 28; Hance v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — 1. The evidence shows that defendant’s agent solicited the ship-*249■meat of the goods from Swift & Company, named the ■routing and the through rate and furnished Swift & Company’s agent with a blank printed form of contract, which was filled out in ink by the agent and presented to the defendant’s agent at South Omaha, who signed it for the railroad company. We think this evidence is conclusive that both parties agreed to the contract, although it was not signed by the plaintiffs or by Swift & Company as their agent.
The shipment was made wholly without this State and…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Myrick v. Michigan Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Quimby v. . VanderbiltNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Jennings v. Grand Trunk RailwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Read v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Mulligan v. Illinois Central Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1873
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MitchellIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
- Keithley v. LuskMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Parham v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1920
- Cohen v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907