Ballentine v. North Missouri Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Instructions given for the plaintiff: 1. The court tells the jury that on the 15th day of December, 1863, and from thence till the--day of January, 1864, it was the duty of defendant to furnish sufficient accommodation and rolling stock for the transportation within a reasonable time of all freight and live stock that were offered for transportation at the place of starting, at the junction of other roads, at the several station…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Instructions given for the plaintiff: 1. The court tells the jury that on the 15th day of December, 1863, and from thence till the--day of January, 1864, it was the duty of defendant to furnish sufficient accommodation and rolling stock for the transportation within a reasonable time of all freight and live stock that were offered for transportation at the place of starting, at the junction of other roads, at the several station houses and stock yards on the road, and take the same without any unnecessary delay in the order in which such freight…
1Opinion of the CourtFagg, Judge
The law defining and regulating the duties of railroad companies as common carriers, is so well settled now as to admit of little doubt or controversy. As preliminary, however, to the determination of the questions involved in this case, it may be stated that the laws of the State require each railroad corporation to “furnish sufficient accommodations for the transportation of all such passengers and property as shall, within a reasonable time previous thereto, be offered for transportation,” <fcc.—R. C. 1855, p. 435, § 44. The sufficiency of such accommodations must be determined by the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wibert v. New York & Erie Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Clark v. Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
3Cited by18 opinions
- Ayres v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis R. W. Co. v. MortonIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Moffatt Commission Co. v. Union Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Francis v. St. Louis Transfer Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1877
- Palmer v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fé R.R.California Supreme Court · 1894
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.