O'Hara v. Laclede Gaslight Co.
Decision Date | 31 May 1912 |
Parties | O'HARA v. LACLEDE GASLIGHT CO. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Gaslight Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, which court being unable to agree (131 Mo. App. 428, 110 S. W. 642), the case was certified to the Supreme Court. Reversed.
Seddon & Holland, for appellant. A. R. Taylor, for respondent.
This cause reached this court upon a divided opinion of the St. Louis Court of Appeals. 131 Mo. App. 428, 110 S. W. 642. There are three opinions in the case, one affirming the judgment nisi, another concurring in such affirmance, but upon a slightly different course of reasoning, and one dissenting opinion, with the formal request for certification to this court as required by the Constitution.
The vital portions of the petition are:
The petition is thus fully set out because a question as to the nature of the cause of action therein stated is made in the briefs, as well as in the dissenting opinion. Whilst originally the suit was against three defendants, yet by voluntarily dismissing as to two of them the plaintiffs can proceed as below as against the Laclede Gaslight Company alone, and it, of course, is the sole appellant. The Laclede Gaslight Company, being desirous of putting in gas mains in certain named streets in the city of St. Louis, entered into two contracts, one with the Abbott-Gamble Constructing Company, which company was to put the mains into the ground, and one with the Uffman Coal & Teaming Company, which company was to haul the mains to the ground. The latter contract becomes material and reads:
Other facts are well stated by the St. Louis Court of Appeals thus: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maher v. Coal & Coke Co.
...placed in the street by one who, as a matter of law, was an independent contractor and for whose acts appellant is not liable. O'Hara v. Gas Light Co., 244 Mo. 395; Philadelphia Coal & Iron Co. v. Barrie, 179 Fed. 54; Neuschaefer v. Sand & Stone Co., 180 N.Y. Supp. 414; Fink v. Furnace Co.,......
-
Hull v. Gillioz
...trial), and that case has been severely criticized in subsequent decisions. Kelly v. Benas, 217 Mo. 1, 116 S.W. 557; O'Hara v. Gas Light Co., 244 Mo. 395, 148 S.W. 884; Witte v. Stifel, 126 Mo. 295, 28 S.W. 891; Buddy v. Union Term. Ry. Co., 276 Mo. 276, 207 S.W. 821; Barney v. Hannibal & S......
-
Bloecher v. Duerbeck, 30723.
...is not responsible. Gayle v. Mo. Car Foundry Co., 76 S.W. 987; Crenshaw v. Ullman, 20 S.W. 1078, 113 Mo. 639; O'Hara v. Laclede Gas Co., 148 S.W. 884, 244 Mo. 395, 10 S.W. 642; City of Independence v. Slack, 34 S.W. 1094, 134 Mo. 66; McGrath v. St. Louis, 114 S.W. 611, 215 Mo. 191; Fink v. ......
-
Gray v. Kurn
......186; Degonia v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 224 Mo. 588, 123 S.W. 807;. O'Hara v. Laclede G. L. Co., 244 Mo. 403, 148. S.W. 884; Rath v. Knight, 55 S.W.2d 684. (c). Respondent's trial ......