Ham v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 22340.,22340. |
| Parties | HAM v. CHICAGO, B. Q. RY. CO. et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; L. A. Vories, Judge.
Action by Roy Ham against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company and
others. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals.
The plaintiff brought this suit in the circuit court of Buchanan county against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him through the alleged negligence of the latter in running a train of cars into him and an automobile truck he was driving in the yards of the Central Coal & Coke Company at St. Joseph, Mo.
The defendants were the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, Millard F. Hughes, and William G. McAdoo, Director General of Railroads of the United States.
A trial was had before the court and jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $2,500, and, after unsuccessfully moving for a new trial, the defendants duly filed an affidavit in proper form praying for an appeal of the cause to this court, but, instead of allowing the appeal to this court, the learned trial judge granted the appeal to the Kansas City Court of Appeals. Thereafter a motion was filed in the latter court asking to have the cause transferred to this court, which was accordingly done.
The motion to transfer to this court was substantially as follows: Because the validity of section 10 of the Federal Control Act of March 21, 1918 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115¾j), relating to railroads, is raised in this appeal, that is, said act, it is contended for the first time in the motion for a new trial in the circuit court, is unconstitutional, as we gather the meaning of the motion to be that Congress had no power to enact a law making a railroad liable for damages inflicted upon a person, while the road was under the operation of a representative of the United States.
H. J. Nelson and E. M. Spencer, both of St. Joseph, and M. G. Roberts, of St. Louis, for appellants.
William E. Stringfellow, of St. Joseph, for respondent.
WOODSON, P. J. (after stating the facts as above).
After a careful consideration of this motion, we are of the opinion that the cause was improperly transferred to this court for two reasons:
First, because the constitutional question was not raised in time. It should have been raised in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamm v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
...plaintiff, and defendants appeal Affirmed as to defendant Davis, and reversed as to defendant Hughes. For opinion of Supreme Court, see 235 S. W. 1046. H. J. Nelson, E. M. Spencer, and J. G. Trimble, all of St. Joseph, for Wm. E. Stringfellow, of St. Joseph, for respondent. ARNOLD, J. This ......