Hubbard v. St. Louis & Meramec River Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from S't. Louis City Circuit Court.- — Hoto. D. • D. Fisher, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to give, at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, and at the close of all the evidence, the instruction in the nature of a demurrer, asked by the defendant and refused by the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from S't. Louis City Circuit Court.- — Hoto. D. • D. Fisher, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to give, at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, and at the close of all the evidence, the instruction in the nature of a demurrer, asked by the defendant and refused by the court. Said instruction should have been given because the evidence shows that the plaintiff had received from the- American Express Company $46.61 in full satisfaction of all injuries sustained on said occasion, and had executed to said company a written release and discharge in consideration of said amount. A…
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, J.
This is an action for damages, for personal injuries, sustained by the plaintiff on May 5, 1900, at the corner of Eleventh and Locust streets, in St. Louis, in consequence of a collision between the defendant’s car and a wagon of the American Express Company on which the plaintiff was riding, and by which company the plaintiff and the driver of the wagon were employed, their duties being to collect and deliver express packages. The negligence charged is running the car at a rapid and reckless rate of speed, and failure to keep a vigilant watch for persons or vehicles approaching the track.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Barrett v. . the Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Tompkins v. Clay St. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Gabbert v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Leddy v. BarneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Newcomb v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Rogers v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HilligossIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
- Neal v. Curtis & Co. Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- State Ex Rel. Cox v. Maryland Electric Railways Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1915
- Louisville & Evansville Mail Co. v. Barnes' Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.