Herf & Frerichs Chemical Co. v. Lackawanna Line
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Si. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. * * 'x' Tbe evidence at the second and third trials on the question whether the arrival notices had been received by defendant, was exactly the same, consisting of the same deposition and other evidence on this point at each trial. The issues were also identical.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Si. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. * * 'x' Tbe evidence at the second and third trials on the question whether the arrival notices had been received by defendant, was exactly the same, consisting of the same deposition and other evidence on this point at each trial. The issues were also identical. At the second trial, as at the third, there was a demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence, which was overruled, and defendant’s exception went into the record for this court. The effect of that evidence was, therefore, considered and ruled upon by this court,…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE BIGGS.
The plaintiff alleged and proved that by custom or usage the railroad companies leading into New York City were expected and required to give notice of the arrival of goods. This notice, as the evidence for plaintiff tended to prove, was generally sent in the first instance by a messenger, who took a receipt therefor from the consignee. In case a second notice became necessary it was sent by mail. To prove that no notice of any kind was given of the arrival of the shipment in question, the plaintiff read in evidence the deposition of George Maclagan, one of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Metropolitan Bank v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Chambers' Administrator v. Smith's AdministratorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Maack v. SchneiderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Lancaster v. ElliotMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Shoninger v. DayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895