Chamberlain v. Pullman Palace Car Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) Defendant’s instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should haye been given, as plaintiff’s own evidence established such contributory negligence on his part as should have defeated his action. Boot v. Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) Defendant’s instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should haye been given, as plaintiff’s own evidence established such contributory negligence on his part as should have defeated his action. Boot v. Sleeping Car Co., 28 Mo. App. 199; Railroad v. Dandy, 63 Miss. 614; Thompson on Carriers, p. 531; Hutchinson on Carriers [2 Ed.], sec. 617d (2) The refusal of the instructions offered by the defendants was erroneous. Root v. Sleeping Car Co., supra. There was no error in the refusal of the trial court…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $300 from the defendant for the negligence of the latter’s servants in not sufficiently guarding plaintiff’s personal effects, in consequence whereof a valuable watch was stolen out of his waistcoat, lying under a pillow in the berth occupied by him as a passenger on one of the defendant’s sleeping cars. The defendant now assigns for error that the judgment is not supported by the evidence, and .that the court erred in its instructions to the jury.
The petition charged negligence only, and no fraud or felony on part of the defendant’s servants. The answer…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Root v. New York Central Sleeping-Car Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1887
3Cited by3 opinions
- Moore v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Morrow v. Pullman Palace Car Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903