Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Moore
| Decision Date | 06 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 451,451 |
| Citation | 34 S.Ct. 558,58 L.Ed. 906,233 U.S. 182 |
| Parties | ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Piff. in Err., v. H. F. MOORE, C. E. Robinson, and S. H. Smith |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. S. T. Bledsoe, J. R. Cottingham, and George M. Green for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John B. Daish, H. H. Smith, and J. W. Beller for defendant in error.
The defendants in error brought suit in the district court of Lincoln county, Oklahoma, against the plaintiff in error, for damages, alleging that they were the owners of a certain race horse which had been shipped by them over the railroad of the plaintiff in error from Kansas City, Missouri, to Lawrence, Kansas, and which had been injured in transit. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants in error, which was affirmed by the supreme court of Oklahoma (36 Okla. 433, 129 Pac. 24).
It appears that the horse, for the injury to which this suit was brought, was a part of the shipment under which the horse in the previous case of Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Robinson, just decided [233 U. S. 173, 58 L. ed. ——, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556], was carried as therein stated, and that the facts relating to the shipment and cause of injury set forth in the present case are the same as those in the Robinson Case. The supreme court of Oklahoma, after noticing the fact that, except as to the value of the animals, the extent of their injuries and the resulting damages, the two cases were identical in every material feature, followed the Robinson Case.
The present case, therefore, is controlled by the decision in the Robinson Case, and from what we have there said it follows that the judgment here under review must be reversed.
Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Terry
... ... against the Illinois Central Railroad Company and ... another. From a decree for plaintiff, ... 690; A., T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v ... Moore, 233 U.S. 182, 58 L.Ed. 906; C., N. O. & T. P. R ... Pritchard v ... Norton, 1066 U.S. 128; Railway Co. v. White, ... 238 U.S. 511; Mullins v. Y. & ... ...
-
Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Jensen
... ... Jensen against the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company ... Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant ... 901; Atchinson, etc., R. Co. v ... Moore, 233 U.S. 182, 58 L.Ed. 901; So. Ry. Co. v ... R. A. (N. S.) 257; ... Lehigh Valley Railway Co. v. Allied Machinery Co. of America, ... 271 ... 1915B 450, Ann. Cas ... 1915D, 593; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v ... Robinson, 233 U.S ... ...
-
Sommer Corporation v. Panama Canal Company
...Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Robinson, 1914, 233 U.S. 173, 34 S.Ct. 556, 58 L.Ed. 901; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Moore, 1914, 233 U.S. 182, 34 S.Ct. 558, 58 L.Ed. 906; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 1913, 226 U.S. 491, 33 S.Ct. 148, 57 L.Ed. 314; Kansas City Southern R......
-
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Taliaferro
... ... Louis & San Francisco ... Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant ... 1011]; ... Chicago & Alton Railway v. Kirby, 225 U.S. 155 [32 ... S.Ct. 648, 56 ... ...