Singleton v. Pacific Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Phelps Circuit Court. The plaintiff moved the court to instruct the jury— 1. That if they believe, from the evidence, Lyle Singleton furnished nine thousand ties, or any other number, on the line of the south-west branch of the Pacific railroad, which were by the engineer of said road rejected and were after-wards taken and used in the construction of said road, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable compensation for the ties so used. 2. The court…
Read the full summary
Error to Phelps Circuit Court. The plaintiff moved the court to instruct the jury— 1. That if they believe, from the evidence, Lyle Singleton furnished nine thousand ties, or any other number, on the line of the south-west branch of the Pacific railroad, which were by the engineer of said road rejected and were after-wards taken and used in the construction of said road, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable compensation for the ties so used. 2. The court further instructs the jury that the contract between the Pacific Railroad Company and Diven, Stancliff & Co., between…
1Opinion of the CourtFagg, Judge
This was a suit instituted in the Phelps Circuit Court for the recovery- of damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the taking and conversion of a number of cross-ties by the railroad company, and used in the construction of the south-west branch of the Pacific railroad. There is but the one count in the petition, and the trespass is charged to have been committed directly by the company.
*468The answer contains a denial of all the allegations in the petition, and then proceeds to set up the fact that a contract for the construction of the south-west branch of. its road was made with…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Dodge v. GaylordIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
- Powell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Cutler v. HurlbutWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Dondero v. FrumvellerMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Tower v. PauleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898