Cox v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Cape Girardeau Circuit Court.—How. Frank Kelly, Judge. (1) The shipment involved in this case was interstate, and therefore, under the evidence, the provisions of the contract of shipment relied on in bar to plaintiff’s cause of action, as well as all other provisions of said contract, were valid and binding on plaintiff. Hart v. Railroad, 112 U. S. 331; Can v. Railroad, 194 U. S. 427; Adam’s Exp.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cape Girardeau Circuit Court.—How. Frank Kelly, Judge. (1) The shipment involved in this case was interstate, and therefore, under the evidence, the provisions of the contract of shipment relied on in bar to plaintiff’s cause of action, as well as all other provisions of said contract, were valid and binding on plaintiff. Hart v. Railroad, 112 U. S. 331; Can v. Railroad, 194 U. S. 427; Adam’s Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491; Railroad v. Latta, 226 U. S. 519; Railroad v. Miller, 226 U. S. 513; Railroad v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639; Railroad v. Harriman Bros., 27 U. S. 657; Clegg v.…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
Action for damages for the-alleged careless and negligent delay by defendant in furnishing a car for shipment of a lot of hogs from Advance, Missouri, to East St. Louis, Illinois. In consequence of this delay the shipment was twenty-four hours longer in reaching its destination than if it had been promptly loaded and started from Advance. Damages are claimed by decline in the market as well as for the shrinkage in weight of the hogs consequent upon the delay and also for expenses incurred in feeding and caring for them.
There is no ‘complaint of delay in transit after the hogs had been loaded.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Illinois Central Railway Co. v. W. J. Davis & Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1916
- Walker v. Sheffield Steel Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1930