Jones v. Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 14936.,14936.
• Citation: 202 S.W. 433
• Parties: JONES v. TOLEDO, ST. L. & W. R. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

202 S.W. 433

JONES v. TOLEDO, ST. L. & W. R. CO.

No. 14936.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Argued and Submitted March 5, 1918.

Opinion Filed April 2, 1918.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Karl Kimmel, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by J. A. Jones against the Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

S. C. Rogers, of St. Louis, for appellant. Jones, Rocker, Sullivan & Angert, of St. Louis, for respondent.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace to recover damages for the loss of two carloads of onions, shipped by plaintiff, J. A. Jones, to himself at New York, by way of the Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Company, commonly called the "Clover Leaf." From a judgment in favor of plaintiff before the justice the cause was appealed to the circuit court, where on a trial before the court, a jury having been waived, at the conclusion of the evidence for plaintiff, the court, at the instance of defendant, gave a declaration that under the law and pleadings and evidence plaintiff could not recover and the verdict must be for defendant. Whereupon plaintiff took a nonsuit with leave to move to set it aside, which motion was duly filed and overruled and plaintiff appealed.

We cannot sustain the judgment of the learned trial court in this case.

There was evidence on behalf of plaintiff tending to show the shipment, on January 5th, 1912, of the two cars of onions by him by way of the Clover Leaf, and then over the Erie Railroad to New York and that on the arrival of the cars at the terminus of the Erie, on the west side of the river, on January 10th or 11th, a large part of the onions had been frozen and damaged to such an extent as to be greatly depreciated in value. It is true that the evidence does not show that the parties shipping and receiving the consignment examined all of the sacks in which these onions were contained but the party who represented the plaintiff consignee at the New York terminal testified that an examination of some 50 or more sacks satisfied him that the onions in both cars were damaged by freezing. This at least made it a question of the amount of verdict the plaintiff should recover, and it certainly was sufficient evidence to show that he was entitled to recover some damages.

Furthermore, the court, at the instance of defendant excluded from evidence letters written by the railroad company to the plaintiff, or plaintiff's agents, concerning the claim which the plaintiff had put in for damages to his carloads of onions. These letters were objected to, apparently on the ground that they were written in an effort of compromise. We do not find any evidence to sustain any such view. They were letters written by the agents of the railroad to the plaintiff or his agents, returning the papers in which the...