Daggett v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 31 October 1833 |
| Citation | 3 Mo. 264 |
| Parties | DAGGETT & PRICE v. SHAW. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR FROM THE ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.
This was an action of assumpsit commenced by Shaw, the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error, in the St. Louis Circuit Court, to recover of them (being the owners of the steamboat St. Louis) the value of three crates of earthenware shipped on board the St. Louis in good condition, &c., to be transported from New Orleans to the city of St. Louis, and there delivered in like good order and condition to the defendant in error, the dangers of the seas only excepted, &c. The material facts, as preserved in the bill of exceptions, are: “That the three crates of earthenware complained of were lost from on board the steamboat St. Louis, in the Mississippi river, on her passage from New Orleans to St. Louis; that at the time the crates were lost they were not stowed in the hold of said steamboat but were placed upon the lower guard under cover of the upper guard, and from that position were struck off into the river by another boat running against the St. Louis; that goods stowed on the guard were more exposed to accidents than when stowed in the hold of the boat; that the loss was sustained by the running of the steamboat Courtland upon the steamboat St. Louis, in a dark, smoky night; that at the time of the injury the steamboat St. Louis was steered by a pilot as good as any upon the river; that she was under way hugging the bar, which lay on the right hand, and running by soundings in about two fathom water, and as near the bar as was thought safe; that from this position a light was seen across the head of the bar, which at first was not believed by the pilot of the St. Louis to be the light of another boat; that the Courtland turned the head of the bar, when her lights disappeared, and were not seen again from the St. Louis until the boats had appeared so near each other as to render it impossible to avoid a contact; that the Courtland, as if afraid of running aground, turned out obliquely from the bar and struck the St. Louis with her bow-sprit and cut-water, so as to carry away the after part of the wheel-house and after guard, with the three crates and sundry stores belonging to the boat, which were stowed together on the guard, &c., &c. that by the uniform course of navigation on the Mississippi, steamboats ascending hug the shore, and those descending keep the stream; that in transporting goods in steamboats on the western waters, it is the universal practice to stow above hatches upon the decks...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Wabash
...was occasioned by a cause exempting it from liability.-- Wolf v. Express Co., 43 Mo. 421; Levering v. Insurance Co., 42 Mo. 88; Daggett v. Shaw, 3 Mo. 264; Reed v. Railroad Co., 60 Mo. 199. BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiffs are co-partners, doing business in St. L......
-
Freeman & Hinsen v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
...the shipments in question within a reasonable time, and the evidence shows its failure so to do and the damage therefrom. Daggett & Price v. Shaw, 3 Mo. 264; Wolf v. Company, 43 Mo. 425; Hill v. Sturgeon, 28 Mo. 326; Davis v. Wabash, 89 Mo. 349. OPINION JOHNSON, J. Plaintiff shipped two car......
-
Alexander v. McNally
...his liability he must show that the damage was occasioned either by the act of God, the public enemy, or unavoidable accident. Dagget & Price v. Shaw, 3 Mo. 264; Kirby v. Express Co., 2 Mo.App. 374; Davis Railway, 89 Mo. 349; Green v. Railroad Co., 56 Mo. l. c. 558; Hill v. Sturgeon, 28 Mo.......
- Sachse v. Clingingsmith