Saxon v. St. Louis Transfer Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. Geo. N. Shields, Judge. (1) On a demurrer to the evidence, every presumption will be indulged in favor of the plaintiff. (2) Tbe defendant, having placed the obstruction on the landing, cannot escape liability by transferring the possession of it to another. Even inability to remove the obstruction after delivery to another is no excuse.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. Geo. N. Shields, Judge. (1) On a demurrer to the evidence, every presumption will be indulged in favor of the plaintiff. (2) Tbe defendant, having placed the obstruction on the landing, cannot escape liability by transferring the possession of it to another. Even inability to remove the obstruction after delivery to another is no excuse. Tate v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 149; Young v. Oil Co., 185 Mo. 634; Colby v. Hill, 4 C. B.' (N. S.) 554; Thompson v. Gibson, 7 M. & W. 455; Railroad v. Lockery, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 229; Hardin v. St. Claire, 115 Cal.…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
(after stating the facts).
A very able argument and full brief has been filed by the learned counsel for appellant, many authorities being cited in support of their contention against the correctness of the action of the trial court in the exclusion of testimony offered by plaintiff and to the giving of the instruction directing a nonsuit. Most of the authorities, however, that counsel cite are cases arising over Avhat are recognized as nuisances. The petition in this case is bottomed, however, upon the theory of negligence in placing the obstruction in the passageway in a careless manner and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Crane Elevator Co. v. LippertCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1894
- Young v. Waters-Pierce Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
3Cited by1 opinion
- Searcy v. Noll Welty Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1922