Kansas City Trunk Co. v. Bush

• Citation: 208 S.W. 625
• Decision Date: 27 January 1919
• Docket Number: No. 13105.,13105.
• Parties: KANSAS CITY TRUNK CO. v. BUSH.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

208 S.W. 625

KANSAS CITY TRUNK CO. v. BUSH.

No. 13105.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 27, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Daniel E. Bird, nudge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the Kansas City Trunk Company against B. F. Bush, receiver of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, begun in justice court and appealed to circuit court From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Robt. E. Rooney, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Edw. J. White, of St. Louis, and Thos. Hackney, of Kansas City, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

Plaintiff brought suit in a justice court against defendant, as a delivering carrier, for alleged loss of a portion of a consignment of goods and for alleged damage to a certain other portion thereof. Originally the suit was jointly against the carrier and a transfer company who hauled the consignment from the depot to the plaintiff's warerooms. But, in the justice court, judgment was rendered in favor of the transfer company and for plaintiff against the carrier only. The latter appealed to the circuit court, where the case was tried anew. The jury returned a verdict for the carrier, and, judgment being rendered thereon, the plaintiff has brought the case here on appeal.

Error is complained of in the admission of certain evidence and also in the giving of an instruction. The evidence complained of consisted of a list of articles known as "Exhibit A," which the witness testified was made under his supervision and control. Objection was made to it as being hearsay, which was overruled. Later, on cross-examination, plaintiff brought out the fact that the witness had made up the list "Exhibit A" by having the items called from two other lists made, respectively by two clerks under him, and the witness put down the articles in list A as they were called off to him. When the evidence was brought out that the witness had not in fact actually counted the articles himself, and it appeared only in cross-examination and not before, no effort was made to have the evidence stricken out. However, both of the lists from which "Exhibit A" was made were admitted in evidence without objection, and were established as correct by the testimony of the men who respectively made them, so that we are unable to see wherein there is reversible error in the admission of Exhibit A. However, we observe that the motion for new trial contains no ground based upon the admission of improper evidence, and hence such ground is not available on appeal.

We do not agree with plaintiff that defendant's instruction lettered A was erroneous. It did not ignore or exclude any of the issues, nor did it single out and give...