Legal Opinion

Reading v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 2, 1915PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from Louisiana Court of Common Pleas.—Hon. Edgar B. Woolf oik, Judge. (1) The instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should have been given for the following reasons: (a) At all “flag” stations or “wayside deposits” made for the purpose of saving the trouble of hauling to a regular depot the live stock are held at the risk of the owner until they are placed upon the cars.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Louisiana Court of Common Pleas.—Hon. Edgar B. Woolf oik, Judge. (1) The instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should have been given for the following reasons: (a) At all “flag” stations or “wayside deposits” made for the purpose of saving the trouble of hauling to a regular depot the live stock are held at the risk of the owner until they are placed upon the cars. This is for the reason that the shipper knows that there are no agents or servants of the defendant company there to water or feed the cattle or otherwise care for them, and hence the law places the…

1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.

This is the second appeal in' this case, the judgment formerly rendered having been set aside and the cause remanded by our court for error in an instruction. [See Reading v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 165 Mo. App. 123, 145 S. W. 1166.] On the case reaching the circuit court after our judgment of reversal, the petition being unchanged, defendant filed an amended answer which averred that the hogs complained of by plaintiff were not delivered to defendant and never had been in its possession until loaded upon defendant’s cars; that if’ any damage occurred to the hogs prior to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gerst v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
  2. Lackland v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
  3. Reading v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mayfield v. George O. Richardson MacHinery Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Humphreys v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API