Nagel v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Row. J. W. McElhinney, Judge. • (1) The ordinance when offered was competent, and could not be objected to by defendant, for the reason that its acceptance was pleaded. But plaintiff failed to follow the proof of the ordinance with evidence of its acceptance. Therefore, instructions predicated on the ordinance were erroneous. Holwerson v. Railroad, 157 Mo. 216; Day v. Railroad, 81 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Row. J. W. McElhinney, Judge. • (1) The ordinance when offered was competent, and could not be objected to by defendant, for the reason that its acceptance was pleaded. But plaintiff failed to follow the proof of the ordinance with evidence of its acceptance. Therefore, instructions predicated on the ordinance were erroneous. Holwerson v. Railroad, 157 Mo. 216; Day v. Railroad, 81 Mo. App. 471; Anderson v. Railroad, 161 Mo. 411; Sanders v. Railroad, 147 Mo. 411; Schmidt v. Railroad, 163 Mo. 645. (2) The obligation of ordinary care on the…
1Opinion of the CourtReyburn, J.
(after stating the facts as above.) — 1. The court is confronted at the outset with a strenuous renewal of a discussion, which was supposed to have received its obituary both from the Supreme Court and *443from this tribunal in compliance with its constitutional obligation to the superior court, namely, that before the vigilant watch ordinance of the city of St. Louis could be properly admitted in evidence, proof of the allegation that defendant had contracted with the city to accept its provisions and abide by its terms must be introduced. The point sought to be revived is not properly preserved…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. GrantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Christian v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Jackson v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Hutchinson v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Weller v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Smart v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Hoagland v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Coleman v. TreeceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910