Hamilton v. Wabash Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from, the Aud/ram, Circuit Court. — IIon. Elliott M. Hughes, Judge. The loss occasioned by the decline of twenty-five cents a hundred in the sheep market from the twentieth of July, when the lambs should and would have been sold if transported with diligence and in the usual and customary time, to July 21, when the lambs were sold, by reason of defendant’s negligence in transporting the same, is an element of damage for which the defendant is liable, and the refusal…
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the Aud/ram, Circuit Court. — IIon. Elliott M. Hughes, Judge. The loss occasioned by the decline of twenty-five cents a hundred in the sheep market from the twentieth of July, when the lambs should and would have been sold if transported with diligence and in the usual and customary time, to July 21, when the lambs were sold, by reason of defendant’s negligence in transporting the same, is an element of damage for which the defendant is liable, and the refusal of the trial court to so instruct was error for which the case should be reversed. Armstrong v. Railroad, 17 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
The plaintiff sues for damages caused by delay in the shipment of two car loads of lambs from Mexico to Chicago. The following facts seem to be undisputed. The stock was started from Mexico about eight o’clock on the morning of July 19, 1897. The train was then two hours behind its schedule . time. The cars containing the lambs reached East St. Louis too late for the afternoon stock train to Chicago over defendant’s road. The cars were delayed at East St. Louis from about 5 o’clock p. m. until 9:05 p. m., when they were attached to a mixed train bound for Decatur, Illinois. The sheep arrived…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fink v. Lancashire InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Stiepel v. German American Mutual Life Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Maddox v. German Insurance Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Mensing v. American InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1889
- Carroll v. HargettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wright v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Bushnell v. Wabash RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Smith v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Summers v. Wabash RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- R. E. Funsten Dried Fruit & Nut Co. v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.