Legal Opinion

Morrison Tent & Awning Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 6, 1915PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. J. Hugo Grimm, Judge. (1) It is admitted, paragraph 3, agreed statement of facts, that defendant’s train carrying the shipment, which is the subject of the present action, arrived at Iberville station behind time. Therefore, it became the duty of defendant to give notice to the consignee of the arrival of the goods, and its failure to do so makes defendant liable to plaintiff in this case. Prank v. Railroad, 57 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. J. Hugo Grimm, Judge. (1) It is admitted, paragraph 3, agreed statement of facts, that defendant’s train carrying the shipment, which is the subject of the present action, arrived at Iberville station behind time. Therefore, it became the duty of defendant to give notice to the consignee of the arrival of the goods, and its failure to do so makes defendant liable to plaintiff in this case. Prank v. Railroad, 57 Mo. App. 181; Pindell v. Railroad, 34 Mo. App. 683; Same case, 41 Mo. App. 84; Chemical Co. v. Railroad, 70 Mo. App. 283; Same case,…

1Opinion of the Court

REYNOLDS, P. J. —

This action, commenced before a justice of the peace, was for the recovery of the value of a consignment of goods which respondent, a common carrier, undertook to transport from the city of St. Louis to Iberville, Louisiana, there to be delivered to the consignee named in the bill of lading. On appeal from a justice of the peace to the circuit court, the cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts to the court, a jury having been waived.

*70The agreed statement of facts, so far as here material, sets ont that plaintiff, on October 26, 1906, delivered to defendant, at the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pindell v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Frank v. Grand Tower & Carbondale Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1894

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States Feed Mills Co. v. Missouri Pacific RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API