Jackson v. Butler

Citation155 S.W. 1071,249 Mo. 342
PartiesJACKSON v. BUTLER et al. SAME v. UNIVERSAL ADDING MACH. CO.
Decision Date28 March 1913
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Brown, J., dissenting in part.

In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Matt G. Reynolds, Judge.

Action by Floyd D. Jackson, a minor, by Edward Z. Jackson, his curator, against James J. Butler and the Mercantile Trust Company, as executors of Edward Butler, deceased, and the Universal Adding Machine Company. A demurrer to plaintiff's evidence was sustained, whereupon plaintiff took an involuntary nonsuit, which was later set aside and new trial granted, and defendants appeal. Reversed as to defendants executors, and affirmed and remanded as to defendant the Adding Machine Company.

The plaintiff, a minor, through his curator, filed this action in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for personal injuries. The court, at the close of plaintiff's evidence, sustained a demurrer thereto, whereupon plaintiff entered an involuntary nonsuit, which nonsuit was, upon the motion of plaintiff, subsequently made, set aside, and a new trial granted as to all the defendants, except Baker & Knell. Said Baker & Knell were original defendants, made such on the theory that they were joint tortfeasors, arising from their being, as architects, in charge of the repair work hereinafter referred to.

Edward Butler was a party defendant at the trial below, but, having since died, the cause was revived against James J. Butler and the Mercantile Trust Company, as executors of his estate. One Daniel Evans, a building contractor for the repairs in question, and employed by a contract with Edward Butler to make the same, was also a party defendant. From the order granting a new trial, defendant Universal Adding Machine Company (hereinafter for convenience called the machine company) and Edward Butler took separate appeals to this court. For convenience, since the case was tried below as a unit, these appeals will be considered here together. Defendant Evans did not appeal from the order granting a new trial and need not have further place in the case here, except in so far as his his acts may affect others.

It is alleged in plaintiff's petition, and shown by the evidence, that on the date on which plaintiff was injured, to wit, August 9, 1907, and for some months prior thereto, defendant machine company was operating a factory in a building owned by defendant Edward Butler in the city of St. Louis, and that in July, 1907, while defendant machine company was thus as tenant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
82 cases
  • Stein v. Oil & Grease Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 21 Mayo 1931
    ....... No. 28562. . Supreme Court of Missouri. . Division One, May 21, 1931. * . [39 S.W.2d 346] .         Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Clarence A. Burney, Judge. .         AFFIRMED. .          J.C. James and Cowgill & Popham for ...[39 C.J. sec. 1521, p. 1319; 14 R.C.L. sec. 4, p. 68; 20 A.L.R. p. 693, note; Jackson v. Butler, 249 Mo. 342, 366, 155 S.W. 1071, 1078; Salmon v. Kansas City, 241 Mo. 14, 32, 145 S.W. 16, 21, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 328, 335.] Viewed in whatever ......
  • Bridges v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 8 Diciembre 1966
    ...... Page 111 . reference to those circumstances, and his capacity to appreciate the danger.' And shortly thereafter, in Jackson v. Butler, 249 Mo. 342, 155 S.W. 1071, where the contributory negligence of a minor plaintiff 'between 17 and 18 years of age' was for the jury, ......
  • Hosford v. Clark
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 24 Julio 1962
    ...... as such and not as an adult, 2 "(f)or no court can hold that childhood and manhood are bound to observe the same degree of diligence." Jackson v. Butler, 249 Mo. 342, 370, 155 S.W. 1071, 1079(16). And, the authorities leave no room for doubt but that the care and caution required of a ......
  • Neal v. Curtis Co. Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 28 Julio 1931
    ......Washburn v. Gas Light Co., 202 Mo. App. 102, 214 S.W. 410, 223 S.W. 725; Seth v. Elec. Co., 241 Ill. 242; Jackson v. Butler, 249 Mo. 342; Shunk v. Harvey (Mo.), 223 S.W. 1066; Swigart v. Lush, 196 Mo. App. 471, 192 S.W. 138. (2) The court erred in refusing to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT