Evans Garden Cultivator Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Pettis Circuit Court. — Hon. Richard Field, Judge. (1) The attempt to prevent delivery was not intended as a means of securing payment for that shipment, but to bring the consignee, Evans, to time on another matter. The law is as set forth in defendant’s third instruction and the court erred in refusing it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Pettis Circuit Court. — Hon. Richard Field, Judge. (1) The attempt to prevent delivery was not intended as a means of securing payment for that shipment, but to bring the consignee, Evans, to time on another matter. The law is as set forth in defendant’s third instruction and the court erred in refusing it. The evidence was such that under the law on this feature of the case, the finding should have been for the defendant, and this should cause a reversal of the judgment. 23 Am. and Eng. Encyclopedia, title, Stoppage in Transitu, p. 903; note in 29 Am. Dec. 386; Tiedeman on…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The canse of action stated in the .petition is that the plaintiff, a manufacturing corporation, delivered to the defendant, a common carrier, at its station in the town of Paris,, in this state, twenty-five bundles of “patent garden cultivators,” of the value of $250, consigned to J. ,B. Evans, to be transported over its said railway to the city of Waco, in the state of Texas. That the plaintiff, immediately after the said shipment and consignment, and before said goods had reached their destination, gave the defendant’s agent at the latter place written notice not to deliver the samé to the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fitzgerald v. HaywardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Clark v. HammerleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Buckley v. Furniss & StickneyNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Sullivan v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- State v. WingfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hartman v. MuehlebachMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- R. J. Schwab & Sons Co. v. FriezeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Borden v. Falk Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Carder v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Kerr v. CusenbaryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897