Rice v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.
Montana Supreme Court
’Appeal from, District Court, Custer County; Daniel L. O’Hern, Judge. Action by Bobert E. Bice against tbe Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Bailway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
’Appeal from, District Court, Custer County; Daniel L. O’Hern, Judge. Action by Bobert E. Bice against tbe Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Bailway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial. The railway company’s duty as a common carrier to the plaintiff is governed by statute and contract, and under our statute, custom cannot be used as proof of any contract or instrument, but only to explain the character of the contract or instrument where such character is not otherwise plain. But in such cases proof of custom is not admissible unless…
1Opinion of the Court
MR. COMMISSIONER SPENCER
prepared the opinion for the court.
The plaintiff in this action bases his right to a recovery upon a complaint which for the first cause of action charges the defendant with receiving four carloads of his sheep on October 10, 1914, for transportation from Miles City, Montana, to South St. Paul, Minnesota, under a shipping • contract attached to his complaint and made a part thereof. The defendant is charged with negligence as follows: “That the defendant did not transport said sheep to said South St. Paul, Minnesota, promptly, nor within a reasonable time, but, on the…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Parham v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1920
- Ryan Co. v. RussellMontana Supreme Court · 1916
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kakos v. ByramMontana Supreme Court · 1930