Marshall v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.

Decision Date31 October 1883
Citation78 Mo. 610
PartiesMARSHALL v. THE ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court.--HON. G. D. BURGESS, Judge.

REVERSED.

Wells H. Blodgett for appellant.

Samuel C. Majors, C. W. Bell and S. P. Houston for respondent.

HOUGH, C. J.

The material portion of the petition in this case is as follows: That defendant, on or about the 11th day of October, 1878, for a reward, undertook and agreed to convey plaintiff safely from Kirksville, in Adair county, to Dalton, in Chariton county, but that wholly neglecting and disregarding its duty in that behalf, maliciously or wantonly and wrongfully refused to put plaintiff off at Dalton, but carried her on to Brunswick, and that by reason of said wrongful act of defendant she was damaged in the sum of $5,000, for which she prays judgment. The defendant in its answer denied each and every allegation contained in the petition.

The plaintiff testified as follows: “I reside at Newark, Knox county, Missouri. On October 11th, 1878, I bought from defendant's agent at Kirksville a ticket from Kirksville to Dalton. I asked the agent if he could sell me a through ticket to Dalton (I knew I would have to make a change at Moberly), and he said he could. He got the ticket and I paid him for it. I asked what time the train would go out; it was then after eight o'clock, and he said the train left ten minutes after nine. I asked him what time it would get to Moberly, and he told me. I said, how long will I have to wait there, and he said something over two hours. I then paid him for the ticket. I then asked him if I would have any trouble in making the change at Moberly, or in getting off at Dalton, and he said ‘no, madam, none at all; the officers all along this road are gentlemanly and accommodating.’ I got on board the train and went to Moberly, and got off there a little after twelve, and went into the waiting room. I was not informed at Moberly that the train did not stop at Dalton. I sat quietly in the depot over two hours. They said the train was behind time. It was in the night, but the train finally came along, and I got on board. The first time the conductor came along after I got on at Moberly, I handed him my ticket, and he said: I cannot put you off at Dalton, we do not stop there. I said: What did they sell me a ticket for, then? He said he would take me on to Brunswick, but could not stop at Dalton. I insisted that he should stop there, and he said: No, madam, we cannot stop there. Shortly afterward he came through the car again and I called to him and told him the circumstances; that my daughter-in-law was very sick, and he said: No, madam, I cannot put you off, I have no more right to put you off there than I have to stop at any farm house on the road; I cannot do it. A lady spoke up and said: If she had no ticket you would put her off--which seemed to annoy him, and he walked off. He came in the third time, and I called to him, and said: I have not a particle of baggage, and it won't detain you three minutes. He said: I understand the matter perfectly and do not intend to stop. His manner was rude and abrupt. He did not use any insulting language but was abrupt and impatient. He took me on to Brunswick, and I did not say any more at all. I got out at Brunswick, and got a carriage as soon as I could and went out to Mr. Redman's. It was ten minutes after nine when I got there, and I found my daughter-in-law had just died. I did not explain to the agent at Kirksville the circumstances under which I was going, but did explain to the conductor. I bought the ticket from the agent in the depot. I walked up to the door where everybody bought tickets and he sold me the ticket for $3.25. At Brunswick I hired a conveyance to take me out to Mr. Redman's where my daughter-in-law was sick; that is three and a half miles from Dalton and twelve and a half from Brunswick. I paid for the conveyance $1.50, and I got there ten or twelve minutes after nine. When the train passed Dalton it was not daylight, and the stars were shining when I got to Brunswick. The agent at Kirksville told me to get on the first passenger train. He told me to take the first train that came along after I got to Moberly, and that is why I took it.

Cross-examination: After I left Kirksville, the next conversation I had with the railroad officials was with the conductor after I left Moberly. The conductor said he could not put me off at Dalton. In the first conversation I had with the conductor he told me to go on to Brunswick. The conductor said he was near forty minutes behind time. He gave me the pass back from Brunswick to Dalton, but I objected. I said I do not want your pass, but he gave it to me. In the depot at Kirksville I did not see any notice posted up in regard to the running of trains. I cannot see to read very well after night, and I did not see anything of the kind. In the first conversation the conductor said Dalton was not on his bill to stop, and that is all he said at that time. In the next conversation he again said he could not stop. In the last conversation he said he was behind time, and he turned off in a rude and abrupt manner after the third conversation. He gave me the pass the first time. He said the train on which I would go back would reach Dalton after nine o'clock, and I said I cannot wait that long. The conductor on the train from Moberly to Dalton took up my ticket. He took it up when he first met me, and that is the time he gave me the pass, but I told him I did not want the pass, but that I wanted to stop at Dalton. In my last appeal I said, if you will slacken the speed of the cars, I will get off at the back of the car and risk the danger; and he said, I am not going to do it. This was in the third and last conversation, and his manner was rude and abrupt. I knew he was out of patience. I do not know that there was anything abrupt in the first two...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Bertram v. Peoples Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1900
    ... ...           Appeal ... from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Jacob Klein, ... Benson v. Railroad, 78 Mo. 504; Marshall v ... Railroad, 78 Mo. 610; Parsons v. Railroad, 94 ... 376, 11 S.W. 739; Walker v. City of ... Kansas, 99 Mo. 647, 12 S.W. 894; State v ... Moore, 101 Mo ... ...
  • Owens v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1888
    ... ... 326; Morgan v. Durfee, 69 Mo ... 479; Frances v. Transfer Co., 5 Mo.App. 7; Marshall v ... Railroad, 78 Mo. 610; Wells v. Sanger, 21 Mo ... 354; Railroad v. Armo, 91 U.S. 489. It ... introduced by his patient. Carrington v. St. Louis, ... 89 Mo. 209; Groll v. Tower, 85 Mo. 249; Squires ... v. Chillicothe, 89 Mo. 230; Blair v ... ...
  • Merrill v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1884
    ...for appellants. (1) The verdict was excessive. In such case the judgment will be reversed. Benson v. Railroad Co., 78 Mo. 504; Marshall v. Railroad Co., 78 Mo. 610. (2) It was error to admit John Merrill as a party plaintiff during the progress of the trial. He was a necessary party (R. S. ......
  • Simmons v. Lusk
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1917
    ...The instructions given for plaintiff were correct, but rendered worthless by defendant's instruction No. 7. 45 Ark. 256; 47 Id. 74; 78 Mo. 610; 52 Ark. 406. It was abstract and contradictory to the correct instructions given, and confused the jury. W. F. Evans of Missouri and B. R. Davidson......
  • 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