Blair Horse & Mule Co. v. St. Joseph & G. I. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1915
• Docket Number: No. 11729.,11729.
• Citation: 180 S.W. 412
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: BLAIR HORSE & MULE CO. v. ST. JOSEPH & G. I. RY. CO.

180 S.W. 412

BLAIR HORSE & MULE CO. v. ST. JOSEPH & G. I. RY. CO.

No. 11729.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

November 22, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; Charles H. Mayer, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the Blair Horse & Mule Company against the St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff for $900, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. A. Brown, and L. J. Eastin, and R. L. Douglas, all of St. Joseph, for appellant. J. E. Dolman and O. E. Shultz, both of St. Joseph, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff's action is for damages to five carloads of mules shipped on defendant's road from St. Joseph, Mo., to Memphis, Tenn. It recovered judgment in the circuit court.

It is insisted by plaintiff that defendant negligently furnished cars unfit for the transportation of mules, and that the particular negligence was a failure to bed the floors of the cars with sand, which left the mules standing on a smooth or slick floor, whereby they slipped and fell, and were thereby caused to fight, bite, and kick one another, until many of them were seriously injured.

An examination of the record makes clear that defendant has not fully appreciated the immense advantage plaintiff has obtained in securing a verdict in its favor on the disputed facts. We must accept the verdict as conclusive in plaintiff's favor on all points, where it had any substantial evidence, including reasonable inferences, to sustain such points. Now there was evidence tending to show that the floors of the cars in question were so smooth as to afford an insecure footing for the mules; that, with such floors, the mules are apt to slip or fall; that they thereby become nervous, frightened, or angry, and, in consequence, they will fight, kick, and bite each other. The evidence further tended to show the remedy for this was a covering with sand of sufficient depth. It further tended to show that no such protection was provided, and that the mules were thereby made to injure themselves. Defendant has cited us to testimony on this head which is deemed favorable to it, but the question is not so much as to what may be found in favor of defendant as it is as to what may be found in favor of plaintiff. Several witnesses testified in plaintiff's favor on the theory of the case it presents, and we are compelled to rest content with the verdict.

There was a provision in the contract of shipment that plaintiff should present any claim for damages "within ten days and before said stock has been mingled with other stock," etc. There was ample evidence to show that such claim was made as provided, and that defendant took up the claim, investigated, and declined to pay. The claim was made orally, but as the contract did not provide that...