Sargent v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the Crawford Circuit Court.—Hon. C. 0. Bland, Judge. (1) The court erred in striking out the special defense set up in the answer. Laflin v. Railroad, 106 N. Y. 136; Railroad v. Arnold, ,84 Ala. 159. (2) First. An agreement to admit that the absent witnesses named in an application for a continuance would, if present, testify to the facts set out in the application, concedes the sufficiency of the application.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Crawford Circuit Court.—Hon. C. 0. Bland, Judge. (1) The court erred in striking out the special defense set up in the answer. Laflin v. Railroad, 106 N. Y. 136; Railroad v. Arnold, ,84 Ala. 159. (2) First. An agreement to admit that the absent witnesses named in an application for a continuance would, if present, testify to the facts set out in the application, concedes the sufficiency of the application. Revised Statutes, 1889, see. 2127, p. 557; State v. Loe, 98 Mo. 609. And the court having made a finding on the question of diligence, this court will not examine that…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, P. J.
Plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s road from St. Louis to Cuba Junction on the night of October 18, 1888. In her effort to leave the station at the place of her destination, she stepped upon or against some mail bags, and was thereby thrown down and injured.
The defendant answered byway of a general denial, contributory negligence, and as a third defense alleged that Cuba Junction was a small village containing only two hundred and fifty inhabitants; that it had but few streets, which were without lights of any kind; that at the time of the accident there were lamps burning in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pennsylvania Co. v. MarionIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Kelly v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Carpenter v. . Boston and Albany R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Moreland v. Boston & Providence RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Buenemann v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Dempsey v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- Jones v. RushSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Heil v. RogersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1959
- Coulter v. Phoenix Brick & Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Moore v. DawsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.