Scaling v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The defendant’s instruction number one should have been given, for the reason that there is no proof tending to show that ‘the loss resulted from the alleged negligent act. Nolan v. SMcJcle, 3 Mo. App. 300; Ward v. Andrews. 3 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The defendant’s instruction number one should have been given, for the reason that there is no proof tending to show that ‘the loss resulted from the alleged negligent act. Nolan v. SMcJcle, 3 Mo. App. 300; Ward v. Andrews. 3 Mo. App. 275. The plaintiff’s instruction number one was . erroneous and should have been refused, for the reason that it is too general, and does not ■ state what facts, if found, will constitute negligence. Goodwin r>. Railroad, 75 Mo. 73 ; Yarnall v. Railroad, 75 Mo. 575. The •defendant’s instruction…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.
The plaintiff sues for two hundred and forty-five dollars, the value of a gold watch, a pair of pantaloons, twenty-five dollars in money, and some smaller articles, .all of which were stolen from him while he was a passenger in the defendant’s sleeping car, on a trip from Waco, Texas, to St. Louis, Missouri. The testimony tended to show that the plaintiff, on retiring to a lower berth on the night of March 26, 1886, placed his watch and other articles in the pockets of his pantaloons, and then put the pantaloons under his pillow. That, at-about three o’clock a. si., the plaintiff was lying…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Karle v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Boland v. Missouri RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Yarnall v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Kennedy v. North Missouri RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Goodwin v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fisher v. the Pullman Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1923
- Bevis v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Florida v. Pullman Palace Car Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Gourley v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Robinson v. Southern R. Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1913