Blanchard v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. Eiohard Field, Judge. (1) It is submitted that tbe words in said clause, “schedule time of freight trains on the time card of said first party in force at this date and twelve hours added” must, under the rules for interpretation, be given some meaning, and that the parties understood at the time and intended them to mean “forty-four hours and ten minutes,” and that, therefore, the contract provided a specific time within which…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. Eiohard Field, Judge. (1) It is submitted that tbe words in said clause, “schedule time of freight trains on the time card of said first party in force at this date and twelve hours added” must, under the rules for interpretation, be given some meaning, and that the parties understood at the time and intended them to mean “forty-four hours and ten minutes,” and that, therefore, the contract provided a specific time within which the transportation was to be made, and the plaintiff’s cattle having been transported within that time, as shown by the…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
Thisisan action for damages alleged by plaintiff to have been caused by defendant’s negligent delay in the transportation of cattle which he had shipped from Saline county, Missouri, to Chicago, Illinois, which resulted in the cattle failing to go upon the market of the next day after they were shipped, *271and, in consequence, a loss to plaintiff. There was a judgment for plaintiff.
The shipment was made under a shipping contract like the one considered by us in Leonard against this defendant, reported in 54 Mo. App. 293 and 57 Mo. App. 366. Our construction of the fifth clause of the shipping…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Leonard v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Leonard v. Chicago & Alton RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
3Cited by1 opinion
- Anderson v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902