Depuy v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court. — Row. J. W. Alexander, Judge. (1) The servant that defendant authorized to perform these duties is a vice-principal — defendant’s alter ego. 0 ’Hare v. Eailroad, 95 Mo. 667; Butts v. Bank, 99 Mo. App. 173; Euth v. Transit Co., 98 Mo. App. 14; Connolly v. Ptg. Co., 166 Mo. 463; James v. Mut. E. E. L., 148 Mo. 16; Ballard v. Eailroad, 51 Mo. App. 457; Grace v. Eailroad, 156 Mo. 301; Creighton v. M. W. A. 90 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court. — Row. J. W. Alexander, Judge. (1) The servant that defendant authorized to perform these duties is a vice-principal — defendant’s alter ego. 0 ’Hare v. Eailroad, 95 Mo. 667; Butts v. Bank, 99 Mo. App. 173; Euth v. Transit Co., 98 Mo. App. 14; Connolly v. Ptg. Co., 166 Mo. 463; James v. Mut. E. E. L., 148 Mo. 16; Ballard v. Eailroad, 51 Mo. App. 457; Grace v. Eailroad, 156 Mo. 301; Creighton v. M. W. A. 90 Mo. App. 387. (2) Franklin was plaintiff’s vice-principal. Foster v. Eailroad, 115 Mo. 179; Tabler v. Eailroad, 93 Mo. 87; Fox v. Packing Co., 96 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtBboaddus, J.
— Plaintiff seeks to recover damages the result of an injury be received on tbe 9th day of September, 1902, in the State of Iowa, occasioned, as alleged, by the negligence of the defendant. It appears that plaintiff and two other persons, named Lambert and Franklin, the latter having control and supervision of workmen on bridges in the absence of the general foreman, were engaged in working on one of defendant’s bridges when plaintiff was injured. On and prior to said date, defendant was engaged in the construction of a certain bridge over a deep cut on the line of its railroad. On each side…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bradley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Bowen v. Chicago, Burlington & Kansas City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Doyle v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Fugler v. BotheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Callahan v. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jewell v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Stephens v. Deatherage Lumber Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Neves v. GreenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Chasteen v. Singer Sewing MacHine Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1931