Shohoney v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court. — lion. Jno. P. Butler, Judge. (1) The motion to strike out portions of reply was in effect a demurrer thereto, and should he s.o treated, and therefore a hill of exceptions was not necessary to preserve said motion or the court’s action thereon. Those things are all matters of record, are reviewable without any hill of exceptions, and an excep-, tion to such judgment is out of place in the record proper or in the hill of exceptions.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court. — lion. Jno. P. Butler, Judge. (1) The motion to strike out portions of reply was in effect a demurrer thereto, and should he s.o treated, and therefore a hill of exceptions was not necessary to preserve said motion or the court’s action thereon. Those things are all matters of record, are reviewable without any hill of exceptions, and an excep-, tion to such judgment is out of place in the record proper or in the hill of exceptions. Meissner v. Equipment Co., 211 Mo. 112; Mallinckrodt v. Nemnich, 169 Mo. 388; Dysart v. Crow, 170' Mo. 275. Under the…
1Opinion of the CourtLamm, P. J.
Plaintiff lost his right foot and ankle while in the line of duty as a switchman in defendant’s yards and employ in Milan in June, 1904. He sued, laying his damages at twenty thousand dollars, grounding his action on, first, negligence in furnishing defective machinery (couplers, drawheads and coupling apparatus); and, second, on the negligence of a fellow-servant, to-wit, the engineer of the switch engine, in that, without any proper order or direction so to do, he ran his engine against a ear and plaintiff’s leg, plaintiff being at the time engaged in manipulating and adjust*138ing the coupling…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MontgomeryIndiana Supreme Court · 1898
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HerrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Proctor v. Hann. & St. Joe. R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Butler v. LawsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. PeaveySupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Barnidge v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
- Johnson v. Flex-O-Lite Manufacturing CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
- Neal v. Curtis & Co. Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Knisely v. LeatheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Flanigan v. City of SpringfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.