20 Mo.App. 470 (Mo.App. 1886), Birney v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co.
|Citation:||20 Mo.App. 470|
|Opinion Judge:||ELLISON, J.|
|Party Name:||EBENEZER BIRNEY, Respondent, v. WABASH, ST. LOUIS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||GEO. S. GROVER, for the appellant. E. L. FRENCH, for the respondent.|
|Case Date:||February 08, 1886|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Missouri|
APPEAL from Schuyler Circuit Court, HON. ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
The case and facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
I. The petition is defective. The statute requiring railroad companies to transport mixed live stock in the same car was not pleaded. Walthen v. Warner, 26 Mo. 146. No breach of duty on the part of defendant is averred. Field v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 616; Sess. Acts Mo. 1881, p. 82.
II. Plaintiff was not entitled to demand transportation for his stock without pre-paying the freight charges. The testimony here is, that nothing was said by either party, about paying charges. Angell on Carriers, sect. 134; Hutch. Car., sect. 116; Story Bailments, sect. 586.
III. Contingent profits, such as were recovered in this case, should never be allowed. There was no proof of the market value at the place of proposed sale. 1 Suth. Dam. 106; 1 Sedg. Meas. Dam. 112; Hutch. Car., sect. 773; Taylor v. McGuire, 12 Mo. 318; Min. & M'f'g Co. v. Clark, 32 Mo. 305; Lewis v. Ins. Co., 61 Mo. 534; Wilson v. Weil, 67 Mo. 399.
I. Tender of freight charges was not necessary, unless the company had received the stock and demanded payment of charges. Hutch. Car., sect. 116; Deichmann v. Deichmann, 49 Mo. 107.
II. The measure of damage or loss, in this case, is the difference between the market value at the place of destination, at the time the stock would have arrived there, if it had been received and shipped by defendant, and their market value, at the same time, at the point of shipment. Wood's Mayne on Damages, sect. 379; Hutch. Car., 769, 770, 774; Atkisson v. Steamboat, Castle Garden, 28 Mo. 124. The estimate of plaintiff was based on this difference, and should be received as true and correct, since nothing appears to the contrary. There was no objection made at the trial to any of the testimony, and as it tends to establish the amount of loss, the verdict should not be disturbed.
This action was commenced before a justice of the peace in Schuyler county, Missouri. The cause of action was as follows:
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP