Legal Opinion

Goldsmith v. Chicago & Alton Railroad

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 27, 1883PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. By virtue of the statutory provision, section 598, Revised Statutes, a common •carrier that receives goods for transportation, marked to a certain point, is a carrier to that point.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. By virtue of the statutory provision, section 598, Revised Statutes, a common •carrier that receives goods for transportation, marked to a certain point, is a carrier to that point. “ Whenever, by either the common law or the statute law of a state, a right of action has become fixed and a legal liability incurred, that liability may be enforced and the right of action pursued in any court which has jurisdiction of such matters, and can obtain jurisdiction of the parties. —Dennick v. Central R. Co., 12 Cent. L. J. 393. The appellee is treated…

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

This was an action against the defendant as a common carrier, for damages sustained by the plaintiff through a delay in the shipment of three hundred and eighty-three *481head of cattle from East St. Louis, in Illinois, to Jersey City, in New Jersey. The cattle were delivered to the plaintiff at East St. Louis on Wednesday, the 9th of June, 1880. It does not appear that there was any special contract between the plaintiff and defendant when the defendant’s agent delivered to the plaintiff the cattle for shipment; but a few days afterwards the plaintiff’s agent procured from the defendant’s agent…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Snider v. Adams Express Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  2. Converse v. Norwich & New York Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1865
  3. Morrissey v. Wiggins Ferry Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1871
  4. Coates v. United States Express Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1870
  5. Houghtaling v. BallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Crouch v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Hill v. BushSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  3. Minter Bros. v. Southern Kansas RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
  4. Hubbard v. Mobile & Ohio Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
  5. Eckles v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API