McDonald v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Cape Girardeau Court Common Pleas. —Hon. R. O. Ranney, Judge. (1) The demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence under the second count of the petition should have been sustained. The peremptory instruction at the close of all the evidence under the second count should have been given, (a) Plaintiff was not a passenger on the train.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cape Girardeau Court Common Pleas. —Hon. R. O. Ranney, Judge. (1) The demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence under the second count of the petition should have been sustained. The peremptory instruction at the close of all the evidence under the second count should have been given, (a) Plaintiff was not a passenger on the train. O’Donnell v. Railroad, 197 Mo. 110; 4 Elliott on Railroads, secs. 1580, 1581. (b) The difficulty between plaintiff and the brakeman was personal, and the brakeman was not acting within the scope of his employment, in the line of his duty, and his act did not…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
(after stating the facts). — All the evidence tends to prove, and indeed it is conceded throughout the case, that the train on which plaintiff took passage was an extra on which the carriage of passengers.was prohibited. From plaintiff’s evidence alone it appears that the relation of passenger and carrier did not subsist between him and defendant. Plaintiff says that, being without sufficient means to pay the regular passenger fare, he entered into an arrangement with the conductor of the freight whereby he was to be carried from Cape Girardeau to Crystal City on the payment of twenty-five…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Haehl v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Davidson v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Farber v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Smoot v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Slaughter v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hoeffen v. Columbia Taxicab Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Hicks ex rel. Maize v. ShanabargerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1951
- Robbs Ex Rel. Robbs v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1922
- Lampe v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1920
- Wolfe v. Kansas City, Mo.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1933