Corrister v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court, Hon. James H. Sloyer, Judge. Statement of case by the court. This was an action for the recovery of damages, on account of the plaintiff’s wrongful ejection from one of defendant’s trains of cars. The plaintiff entered the train at latan, one of defendant’s stations. The train was bound for Kansas City, and the plaintiff claims to have given the conductor a ticket for Kansas City.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court, Hon. James H. Sloyer, Judge. Statement of case by the court. This was an action for the recovery of damages, on account of the plaintiff’s wrongful ejection from one of defendant’s trains of cars. The plaintiff entered the train at latan, one of defendant’s stations. The train was bound for Kansas City, and the plaintiff claims to have given the conductor a ticket for Kansas City. The plaintiff was ejected at Beverley Junction, the second station on defendant’s railroad from latan, on the route to Kansas City. The station between latan and Beverley Junction…
1Opinion of the Court
I
Hall, J.
The objections made by the defendant to the admission of evidence were too general, and are not, for that reason, subject to review by us. The defendant should have specified the grounds of its objections. Margrave et al. v. Ausmuss et al., 51 Mo. 567, and cases cited ; Johnson v. Railroad, 22 Mo. App. 599. But as the judgment must be reversed, for reasons hereinafter given, thereby necessitating a new trial, we deem it proper to pass upon the objections urged by the defendant before us as to the admissibility of said evidence. The declarations of an agent or servant do not, in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Scovill v. GlasnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Luby v. . the Hudson River Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Adams v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Margrave v. AusmussSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- McDermott v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. DavidSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Britton v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. BeattySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Sherwood v. Grand Avenue Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Procter v. LoomisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.