Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. 1. It was the duty of defendant to deliver the machines to the persons named in the bills of lading.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. 1. It was the duty of defendant to deliver the machines to the persons named in the bills of lading. Bristol v. B. B. Co., 9 Barb. 158; Jeffersonville B. B. Co. v. White, 6 Bush (Ky.) 251; Winslow v. B. B. Co., 42 Vt. 700; McEntee v. Steamboat Go., 45 N. Y. 37; Price v. B. B. Co., 50 N. Y. 213; Thorne v. Tilbury, 3 Hurls. & N. 534; Angle v. B. B. Co., 9 Iowa 488; s. c., 18 Iowa 555; Alderman v. Eastern B. B., 115 Mass. 233; 2 Redfield on Railways, (5 Ed.) p. 203. 2. Plaintiff’s instructions numbers one and two were not calculated to mislead the jury,…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
The only question of importance in this case is the propriety of the instructions given by the court. As the principal objections to them were not so much on *206account of any defects in them, as abstract declarations of law, as their inapplicability to the facts proved, and the points in issue and their tendency to mislead and confuse the jury, it is necessary, in order to determine the force of such objections, to state the facts in evidence. In doing this, I will be understood as stating them as found by the jury, where there is any discrepancy in the testimony, though I must acknowledge…
2Cited by6 opinions
- McBeth v. CraddockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Pindell v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. W. H. McIntyre Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1915
- Gashweiler v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Lake Erie & Western R. R. v. HatchHancock Circuit Court · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.