Doerner v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry O. Riley, Judge. (1) Under the facts in this case the court erred in holding that the diamond was baggage. Hubbard v. Railroad, 112 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry O. Riley, Judge. (1) Under the facts in this case the court erred in holding that the diamond was baggage. Hubbard v. Railroad, 112 Mo. App. 474; Saunders v. Railroad, 62 C. C. A. 528; N. Y. Railroad v. Fraloff, 100 Ú. S. 24, 25 Law Ed. 531; Whitmore v. Caroline, 20 Mo. 518; 4 Elliott on Railroads (1 Ed.), secs. 1646, 1647. (2) It was the duty of the plaintiff under the facts in this case to have disclosed to the baggage agent the contents of her suit case. C. & O. Railroad v. Hall (Ky.), 124 S. W. 372; Railroad v. Matthews, 60 L. R. A. 846,…
1Opinion of the CourtNixon, P. J.
This was an action by Eliza Doerner for the loss of certain personal baggage, including, among other things, her diamond breastpin valued at $300. On October 3, 1906, the plaintiff purchased at St. Louis a ticket over defendant’s railroad to Steele, Mo., and checked at the baggage room at the Union Station a steamer trunk and a large leather suit case which she had purchased a few months before in Germany, paying ten dollars for the same. The trunk reached its destination safely, but the suit case was lost in transit and never found. In the suit case was packed the following articles: One…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. FraloffSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Hannibal Railroad v. SwiftSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Stimson v. Connecticut River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railway Co. v. McGaheySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Mauritz v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hamilton v. Baggage & Omnibus Transfer Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920