Faulkner v. South Pacific R.R.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
| Citation | 51 Mo. 311 |
| Parties | ROBERT P. FAULKNER, et al., Respondent, v. SOUTH PACIFIC RAILROAD, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Laclede Circuit Court.
James Baker and J. N. Litton, for Appellant.
R. P. Bland for Respondent.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages growing out of the alleged breach of contract of affreightment from St. Louis to Lebanon, and from Arlington to Lebanon also, for goods sold and delivered, and upon an account for lost goods assigned to plaintiffs.
The petition alleges that defendant is a corporation, and that it is a common carrier of goods and passengers from St. Louis to Lebanon. This allegation is not noticed by the answer, and it therefore, for the purpose of this case, must be taken as true, and this will dispose of the question of alleged partnership between the two railroads, as it makes no kind of difference whether the two railroads were partners or not. They nevertheless could make an arrangement whereby the South Pacific might become liable as a common carrier for shipments, etc., in connection with the Pacific Railroad Company from St. Louis to Lebanon, and as this allegation is not denied, the presumption is that this arrangement did exist.
The answer after thus impliedly admitting the above allegation, denies all the other material allegations of plaintiff's petition, and sets up as a counter-claim the sum of two hundred dollars which had been paid by mistake to the plaintiff. This two hundred dollars is also referred to in the petition, and deducted from the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs based their right to damages on the ground of delay in forwarding their goods to their places of destination, after they had been shipped or received by the defendants on board of their cars, and charged that the goods during this time declined in value, and the difference in value between when they ought to have been delivered, and when acually delivered is the gravamen of their complaint as to these shipments. They also claim that some lumber shipped was never delivered, and claim that it was converted by the defendants.
The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove their case as laid in the petition, and conducing to show that there was a delay of several days in delivering the goods beyond a reasonable time for that purpose.
The defendants introduced evidence tending to show that at the time these goods were shipped,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chicago v. Hale
...that question, cited Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Finnigan et al. 21 Ill. 648; T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Arnold, 43 Ill. 418; Faulkner v. South Pacific R. R. Co. 51 Mo. 311; Poucher v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 263; Mulligan v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. 2 Am. R'y R. 322; Hadley v. Baxendale, 26 En......
-
Cronan v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
...of this kind. Ballentine v. Railroad, 40 Mo. 491; Hoffman Co. v. Railroad, 119 Mo.App. 501; Dawson v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 296; Faulkner v. Railroad, 51 Mo. 311; Pruitt Railroad, 62 Mo. 527; State v. Railroad, 90 N.W. 309; State v. Railroad, 101 N.W. 23; Strought v. Railroad, 87 N.Y.S. 30; 4 El......
-
Matthews v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
...rule in such matters. Browning v. Railroad, 124 Mo. 71; Campbell v. Railroad, 121 Mo. 340; Anderson v. Miller, 33 S.W. 617; Faulkner v. Railroad, 51 Mo. 311; Tate v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 158. (10) Upon the undisputed evidence in this case, as we have already shown, the verdict of the jury was n......
-
Knight v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad Co.
...plaintiff refused to sign a contract releasing defendant from liability, or to send some person along to feed and water the hog. Faulkner v. Railroad, 51 Mo. 311; Schwab Union Line, 13 Mo.App. 163; Dawson v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 296; Guinn v. Railroad, 20 Mo.App. 453; Bussey v. Railroad, 13 F. ......