Schmidt v. St. Louis Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Jas. E. Withrow, Judge. (1) Section 1275 of the revised ordinances of the city of St. Louis was properly admitted in evidence, (a) Because the defendant agreed that the city plight regulate the manner of running defendant’s cars, and section 1275 is made by section 1274 binding upon all street railway corporations doing business in the city.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Jas. E. Withrow, Judge. (1) Section 1275 of the revised ordinances of the city of St. Louis was properly admitted in evidence, (a) Because the defendant agreed that the city plight regulate the manner of running defendant’s cars, and section 1275 is made by section 1274 binding upon all street railway corporations doing business in the city. Schmidt v. Eailroad, 149 Mo. 269. (b) Because section 1275, as a valid police regulation, was binding upon the defendant company, even in the absence of defendant’s consent to be bound thereby. Jackson v.…
1Opinion of the CourtYalliant, J.
This is the second appeal in this case. At the trial out of which this appeal arises the pleadings and evidence were substantially the same as in that from which the former appeal came and, therefore, for a statement of the ease we refer to the opinion on the former appeal, Schmidt v. St. Louis Eailroad Company, 149 Mo. 269, which for the sake of brevity we will adopt without repeating it here, noting only points in the proceedings peculiar to our present inquiry. During the trial we are now reviewing the plaintiff read in evidence an ordinance of the city approved April 4, 1889, authorizing *650t…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hanlon v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Bunyan v. Citizens' Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Peck v. ChouteauSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Margrave v. AusmussSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Drey v. DoyleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Spear v. United RailroadsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Koenig v. Union Depot Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Higgins v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Battles v. United Railways Co. of St LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Gebhardt v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.