Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

Decision Date08 May 1905
PartiesSMITH v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mercer County; Paris C. Stepp, Judge.

Action by John D. Smith against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

M. A. Low, Orton & Orton, and Harber & Knight, for appellant. Robinson & Woods, for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

Plaintiff shipped over defendant's road on the 4th of August, 1903, a car load of hogs from Millgrove, Mo., to Kansas City, Mo. They were loaded at 8 o'clock p. m., and arrived at their destination at about 8 o'clock a. m. of the next day, but were not moved to the stockyards until 1 o'clock p. m. of the same day. The hogs were shipped under a special contract, in which it was agreed that the rate of shipment was less than the usual rate. It was set out in this contract that: "The live stock covered by this contract is not to be transferred within any specified time nor delivered at destination at any particular hour. nor in season for any particular market." And further: "That first party [the defendant] shall be exempt from liability for loss or damage arising from derailments, collisions, fire, escapement from cars, heat, suffocation, overloading, crowding, maiming, or other accidents or causes not arising from the negligence of the first party." And it was provided in case of loss that: "As a condition precedent to any damages, or any loss or injury to live stock covered by this contract, the second party [plaintiff] will give notice in writing of the claim therefor to some general officer or to the nearest station agent of the first party at the destination * * * and before such stock is mingled with other stock; such written notification to be served within one day after delivery of stock at destination; * * * that a failure to comply with the provisions of this clause shall be a bar to the recovery of any and all such claims." The evidence showed that when the hogs arrived at Kansas City, at 8 o'clock a. m., they were in good condition; but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Dalton
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 24, 1915
    ......Railway Co., 176 Mo. App. 379, 158 S. W. 465; Giles v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé, 92 Kan. 322, 140 Pac. 875; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Park, 66 Kan. 248, 71 Pac. 586; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Shepherd (Ark.) 168 S. W. 137; Railway Co. v. Ayers, 63 Ark. 331, 38 S. W. 515; Smith v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, 112 Mo. App. 610, 87 S. W. 9; Owen v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 87 Ky. 626, 9 S. W. 698; Southern Ry. Co. v. Tollerson, 129 Ga. 647, 59 S. E. 799; Pavitt v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 153 Pa. 302, 25 Atl. 1108; Western Ry. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340, 8 South. 649; ......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 19, 1917
    ......T. Co. v. R. R. Co., 107 Fed. Inman v. R. R. Co., 159 F. 960;. Clegg v. R. R. Co., 203 F. 971; Kidwell v. R. R. Co., 208 F. 1; Smith v. R. R. Co., 87 S.W. 9;. Carr v. R. R. Co., 48 L.Ed. (U.S.) 1053; R. R. Co. v. Phillips, 87 P. 470; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 72 So. 874. . . ... defendant in the court below in bar of this action. . . In the. case of Howard v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. (Mo. App.), 184 S.W. 906, the court held that when goods are. shipped between points in the same state, and in order to. reach ......
  • Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Baldwin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • July 3, 1911
    ......753, 28 P. 1013; Kalina v. Railroad Co.,. 69 Kan. 172, 76 P. 438; A., T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Crittenden,. 4 Kan. App. 512, 44 P. 1000; Smith v. C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co.,. 112 Mo.App. 610, 87 S.W. 9; Dawson v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry. Co., 76 Mo. 514; U.S. Express Co. v. Harris, 51 Ind. 127;. ......
  • Freeman & Hinsen v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • June 4, 1906
    ......Railway,. 22 Mo.App. 321; Dawson v. Railway, 76 Mo. 514;. Messengale v. Telegraph Co., 17 Mo.App. 257;. Leonard v. Railway, 54 Mo.App. 293; Smith v. Railway, 87 S.W. 9; Ward v. Railway, 158 Mo. 226. (2) Plaintiffs' instruction numbered 2 was. erroneous, and should not have been given. ......
  • 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