Rashall v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Oircnit Court.-"-Son. Henry L. McGune} Judge. (1) The plaintiff, under his own statement, was guilty • of contributory negligence in attempting to cross the track directly in front of a moving locomotive approaching him in plain view.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Oircnit Court.-"-Son. Henry L. McGune} Judge. (1) The plaintiff, under his own statement, was guilty • of contributory negligence in attempting to cross the track directly in front of a moving locomotive approaching him in plain view. Loring v. Railroad, 128 Mo. 349; Moore v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 544; Hook v. Railroad, 162 Mo. 569; Vanback v. Railroad, 171 Mo. 338. Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury from moving cars and engines in the defendant’s railroad yard as a matter of law.. Aerkfetz v. Humphrey, 145 U. S. 418; Loring v. Railroad, 128 Mo. 349. A railroad company was…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
BOND, J.
Action Arising in Another State. (after stating the facts as above). — I. If a foreign law is the foundation of a cause of action or a defense thereto, it must be both pleaded and proven. On the other hand, if such a law is only evidentiary, it may be proven though not pleaded; but it must be proven in both cases, for in no other way can this court apply to it a joinder of issues. The reason is, that our courts do not take judicial cognizance of the laws of sister States or foreign countries when they are issuable facts in any controversy. In such cases formal proof must be…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Draper v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1941
- Branstetter v. GerdemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- Mayfield v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- Lappin v. PrebeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.