Keim v. Union Railway & Transit Co.

Decision Date20 December 1886
Citation90 Mo. 314,2 S.W. 427
PartiesKEIM v. UNION RAILWAY & TRANSIT CO.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

HENRY, C. J., dissents.

Appeal from St. Louis court of appeals.

Kehr & Tittman, for respondent, Keim. S. M. Breckinridge, for appellant, Union Railway & Transit Co.

NORTON, J.

This is an action in which plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the alleged negligence of defendant in running its locomotive and cars over her husband, George Keim, and killing him. The answer of defendant is a general denial. On the trial, plaintiff obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the St. Louis court of appeals, and the case is before us on defendant's appeal, and we are asked to reverse the judgment, for alleged error of the trial court in receiving evidence, and in giving and refusing instructions.

As defendant's objections to the evidence offered and received were of a general character, without stating any ground whatever on which they were based, the question as to whether it was or not properly received under repeated rulings of this court is not before us for determination. Greene v. Gallagher, 35 Mo. 226; Rosenheim v. America Ins. Co., 33 Mo. 230; Clark v. Conway, 23 Mo. 438.

It is next insisted that there is no evidence justifying the court in submitting the case to the jury, and none to support their verdict. This objection necessitates a review of the evidence, which, on the part of plaintiff, tended to show that deceased was a butcher by trade, and lived with his family in St. Louis, on Thomas and Cooper streets, where he had his shop, and that he also occupied a stall at Lucas Market, on Twelfth and Pine streets, where he sold his meat; that he had been engaged in this business for several years, going from his home in the early morning to the market every day except Sunday; that on the twenty-eighth September, 1878, he left his home soon after 4 o'clock in the morning to go to the market, and went east on Gratiot street, when, about 4:30 o'clock, he was struck and killed on the path in Gratiot street, crossing defendant's track, by a train of defendant coming west, which was running at the rate of 12 miles an hour, and, according to defendant's evidence, without its bell being rung at the time of, and immediately before, the collision took place; that several railroad tracks crossed said Gratiot street diagonally; that between and across them there were foot paths, used by persons in passing along and across said street and railroad tracks; that Gratiot street was laid out as early as 1846, and had been continuously used by the public; that in 1876 the city of St. Louis, by ordinance which defendant accepted, gave it permission to extend its tracks from Tayon avenue to the western city limits, and to cross, among other streets, Gratiot street; that the said ordinance, among other things, provided that defendant should not run its trains over the tracks therein mentioned at a rate of speed exceeding six miles an hour, and that the bell on its engine should be constantly sounded while a train was moving within the city; that the lines of Gratiot street when first laid out were well marked with fences, and, subsequently, by buildings; that the railroad tracks were laid on the natural surface of the ground, and so remained till 1880; that before defendant laid its tracks the entire north side of the street had been lined with houses, and several buildings were also on the south side.

The only persons who saw the accident were the conductor and engineer in charge of the train, which consisted of an engine, tender, and seven cars, both of whom were introduced as witnesses by the defendant. The conductor testified that it occurred on a dark, gloomy, foggy morning; that the headlight in the engine was burning; that he was sitting in front of the engine with a lamp in his hand looking ahead; that, in consequence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Sluder v. St. Louis Transit Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 1 Junio 1905
    ......, on which last-named avenue the defendant company owned and operated a double-track street railway, in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the circuit court for $6,000, and ...Louis charter (2 Rev. St. 1879, p. 1585), in St. Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 149 U. S. 467, 13 Sup. Ct. 990, 37 L. Ed. 810, the Supreme Court of the United ...Karle v. Railroad was cited and followed in Keim v. Railroad, 90 Mo., loc. cit. 321, 2 S. W. 427, but there was no discussion of the subject, and ......
  • Galentine v. Borglum
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 7 Abril 1941
    ......565; Igo v. Boston R. Co. (Mass.), 90 N.E. 574, 575; Naniko v. Transit Co., 125 N.Y. Supp. 389, 391; Jas. Stewart & Co. v. Newby, 266 Fed. 287, ...235, 245; Hipsley v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 348, 354; Horr v. Railway Co., 156 Mo. App. 651; Jones v. Hedges (Cal.), 12 Pac. (2d) 111, 116; ...Kelm v. Union Ry. & Transit Co., 90 Mo. 314, 2 S.W. 427; Boston v. Murray, 94 Mo. 175, 7 ......
  • Simpson v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 31282.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 19 Abril 1934
    ......SIMPSON, . v. . ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. . No. 31282. . Supreme Court of Missouri. . ...92, 40 N.E. 270; Heaton v. Eldridge, 46 N.E. 638; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Pollard, 94 Va. 146, 26 S.W. 421; Stock v. Detour ...Co. v. Adams, 159 Pac. 250; Covell v. Railroad Co., 82 Mo. App. 180; Keim v. Union R. & Transit Co., 90 Mo. 472; Sluder v. Transit Co., 189 Mo. 107; ......
  • Sluder v. St. Louis Transit Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 1 Junio 1905
    ...... States, and, with possibly one or two exceptions, by every. State of the Union, in which the question has arisen, and. especially has it been repudiated by the Supreme Court ...Railroad, . 64 Mo. 275; Merz v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 677; Keim. v. Railroad, 90 Mo. 321; Eswin v. Railroad, 96. Mo. 290; Schlereth v. Railroad, 96 Mo. ... the defendant company owned and operated a double-track. street railway, in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiff recovered. judgment in the circuit court for $ 6,000, and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT