Model Clothing Co. v. Columbia Transfer Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hón. James E.'Withrow, Judge. The defendant company was not a connecting carrier, and accordingly the judgment of the court should have been for the defendant. Railroad v. Young, 25 Neb. 651; Roach v. Railroad, 1 Manitoba 158; Cooper v. Railroad, 27 "VVis. 81; Railroad v. Scroggin and Brown, 90 S. W. 52.1 (Texas); 6 Am. and Eng.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hón. James E.'Withrow, Judge. The defendant company was not a connecting carrier, and accordingly the judgment of the court should have been for the defendant. Railroad v. Young, 25 Neb. 651; Roach v. Railroad, 1 Manitoba 158; Cooper v. Railroad, 27 "VVis. 81; Railroad v. Scroggin and Brown, 90 S. W. 52.1 (Texas); 6 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 604-605; Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 247. (1) A connecting carrier is one whose route, not being the first one, lies somewhere between the point of shipment and the point of destination. Nanson v. Jacob, 12…
1Opinion of the CourtCaulfield, J.
(after stating the facts).— I. Defendant contends that it was not a connecting carrier but was merely the agent of the M. K. & T. Railroad Company or of the Big Four Railroad Company and liable to respond for non-performance of its duty only to its principal. This contention cannot be sustained in the state of the record before us. The *485mode of transportation adopted by tbe defendant and tbe length of its route did not affect its character as a connecting carrier. Its route lay between the point of shipment and the point of destination and was necessary to close the gap between the Big Pour…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hooper v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Scoggin & BrownCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1905
- Costigan v. Michael Transportation Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Nanson v. JacobMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. YoungNebraska Supreme Court · 1889