Goetz v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Citation | 50 Mo. 472 |
| Parties | ANTON GOETZ, Respondent, v. THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 August 1872 |
50 Mo. 472
ANTON GOETZ, Respondent,
v.
THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
August Term, 1872.
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.
Hall & Oliver, for appellant.
I. The appellant, as a common carrier of passengers, had a lawful right to make and carry out the rule enforced in this case. (Crocker v. New London, W. & P. R.R. Co., 24 Conn. 249; The Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Metc. 596; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221; Hibbard v. New York & Erie R.R. Co., 15 N. Y. 455; Downs v. N. Y. & N. H. R.R. Co., 36 Conn. 287; Cheney v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co., 11 Metc. 121.)
[50 Mo. 473]
II. The second instruction given to the jury at the request of the respondent entirely ignores the issue raised by the pleadings and evidence, and is contradictory to one given for appellant.
III. There was no evidence of either malice, violence, oppression or wanton recklessness of appellant, or of its agents, in its treatment of the respondent. Everything was done decently, civilly, and in order.
G. D. Burgess, for respondent.
The instructions presented the case fairly to the jury, and were as favorable to the appellant as it could have desired.
It was the duty of appellant to have notified its servants and agents of the special arrangement between plaintiff and it, and it was guilty of the very grossest negligence in failing to do so. (Sullivan v. Phila. & Reading R.R. Co., 30 Penn. St. 234.)
BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff, with others, purchased a half-fare ticket from Brookfield to Macon, upon an agreement that they were to be returned at the same rate. When about to return to Brookfield he purchased at the Macon ticket office the same kind of ticket and went aboard the train. He had no regular permit to travel on such ticket, and the conductor had not been notified of the arrangement. The latter, therefore, demanded the balance of the fare; and the plaintiff refusing to pay it, the train was stopped, he was ordered to leave the car, and at once obeyed and walked back to Macon. In the evening of the same day he was forwarded to Brookfield without expense.
There is no evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.
...given misstates the law, and the party then undertakes to cure the defect by giving another correct declaration of law. In Goetz v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 472, Judge Bliss draws the distinction sharply: “An instruction in itself erroneous cannot be supplied by another. One that gives a part of th......
-
Baker v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co.
...if taken by itself, is often helped out by others upon the same subject, but even in such cases they must not be contradictory (Goetz v. Railroad Co., 50 Mo. 472); and there are some other modifications of the general rule, but they can have no application here. The question of contributory......
-
Meredith v. Wilkinson
...v. Algermissen, 25 Mo.App. 186; State v. Clevenger, 25 Mo.App. 653; Thomas v. Babb, 45 Mo. 384; Frederick Allgaier, 88 Mo. 598; Goetz v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 472; v. Transfer Co., 45 Mo. 562; Otto v. Bent, 48 Mo. 23; Binbeutel v. Nauert, 2 Mo.App. 295. The court erred in allowing plaintiff the ......
-
Baker v. The Kansas City, fort Scott & Memphis v. Company
......632;. Renshaw v. Ins. Co., 33 Mo.App. 394; Hannibal v. Richards, 35 Mo.App. 15; Kinney v. Springfield, . 35 Mo.App. 97; ... they must not be contradictory. Goetz v. Railroad ,. 50 Mo. 472. And there are some other modifications of the. ......