Walker v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Ho». H. D. Wood, Judge. (1) The plaintiff should have been nonsuited. Moore v. Railway, 75 S.W. 676; Culberson v. Railway, 340 Mo. 64; Cogan v. Railway, 73 S. W. 741; Guyer v. Railway, 174 Mo. 351; Barrie v. Transit Co.,76 S. W. 708; Ries v. Transit Co., 179 Mo. 1; Davies v. Railway, 159 Mo. 9; Hanselman v. Railway, 88 Mo. App. 129; Boyd v. Railway, 105 Mo. 381; Watson v. Railway, 133 Mo. 251; Grocery Co. v. Railway, 89 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Ho». H. D. Wood, Judge. (1) The plaintiff should have been nonsuited. Moore v. Railway, 75 S.W. 676; Culberson v. Railway, 340 Mo. 64; Cogan v. Railway, 73 S. W. 741; Guyer v. Railway, 174 Mo. 351; Barrie v. Transit Co.,76 S. W. 708; Ries v. Transit Co., 179 Mo. 1; Davies v. Railway, 159 Mo. 9; Hanselman v. Railway, 88 Mo. App. 129; Boyd v. Railway, 105 Mo. 381; Watson v. Railway, 133 Mo. 251; Grocery Co. v. Railway, 89 Mo. App. 540; Rider v. Railway, 171 N. Y. 156. (2) Instruction No.. 1 was misleading, prejudicial and reversible error. Harlan v.…
1Opinion of the CourtReyburn, J.
(after stating the facts). — 1. The errors assigned are introduced at portal of the case by the deduction that the usual imperative instruction, asked at close of plaintiff’s case and renewed at close of all the testimony, directing the jury that under the pleadings and thé evidence, plaintiff could not recover and the verdict should be for defendant, should have been given. In determining such question, the evidence constituting plaintiff’s case must be regarded most favorable to him. Meyers v. St. Louis Transit Co., 73 S. W. 379. Giving full credit to the version of plain-r tiff, there is a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Warner v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Watson v. Mound City Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Schwend v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Cogan v. Cass Avenue & Fair Grounds Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Meyers v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dean v. Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- O'Keefe v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Midland Valley Co. v. HilliardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Sampson v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- McKinstry v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904