Maschek v. St. Louis R.R. Co.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Writing for the Court | NAPTON |
Citation | 71 Mo. 276 |
Decision Date | 31 October 1879 |
Parties | MASCHEK v. ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
71 Mo. 276
MASCHEK
v.
ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
October Term, 1879.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
REVERSED.
Smith P. Galt for appellant.
Jos. Jecko for respondent.
NAPTON, J.
The only point made in this case which is thought by this court necessary to be decided is, whether the demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence should have been sustained. It is conceded that if the testimony conflicts, or if there is any from which a jury may fairly deduce a liability, the case must go to the jury. But where there is no evidence to authorize a verdict, and it can only be traced to that sympathy which jurors, and I may add judges, too insensibly feel for the weak in a contest with the powerful, we have heretofore considered it the duty of this court, however distasteful it may be, to interfere. The conclusion we have reached on this point renders unnecessary any investigation of the other two points made by the appellant,
[71 Mo. 277]
defendant below, in regard to the rejection of certain questions put by him during the trial, and in regard to the rejection of an instruction concerning accident or misadventure.
There was no evidence offered by the defendant in this case, and the principal witness for the plaintiff, indeed it might be said the only one of any importance, was a passenger on the car by the name of McIlvain. He was returning from his residence to the post-office, where he was a clerk, and was standing by the driver when the accident occurred, about one o'clock. The grade of the track on Carondelet avenue, at the point where the child was killed, was slightly on the decline going north. Witness was on the west side of the driver, and hearing the driver shout “look out,” “hold on,” or “stop,” he turned his face toward the east, and saw the little boy running for the track about six feet ahead of the mules and fr feet east of the track, the driver with right hand on the brakes and his left pulling on the lines with such force that the tongue went up over the heads of the mules. When the driver shouted to the boy, he kept right on until he got to the middle of the track, where he turned his face north, got under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fry v. St. Louis Transit Co.
...ruling in that regard was according to the pronounced weight of authority in this state. Boland v. Ry., 36 Mo. 484; Mascheck v. Ry., 71 Mo. 276; Winters v. Ry., 99 Mo. 512, 12 S. W. 652, 6 L. R. A. 536, 17 Am. St. Rep. 591; Van Natta v. Ry., 133 Mo. 13; Jett v. Ry. (Mo. Sup.) 77 S. W. 739; ......
-
Frick v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.
...presumption that no child would be there. Mulherrin v. R. R. Co., 81 Pa. St. 375; Bannon v. R. R. Co., 24 Md. 125; Maschek v. R. R. Co., 71 Mo. 276; Gaynor v. R. R. Co., 100 Mass. 214; Hughes v. R. R. Co., 66 Mo. 325; Turner v. Thomas, 71 Mo. 596; Kay v. R. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 276; Morrissey......
-
Farris v. Cass Ave. & Fair Ground Ry. Co.
...v. Railroad Co., 36 Mo. 519; Tarwater v. Railroad Co., 42 Mo. 196; Railroad Co. v. Armstrong,52 Pa. St. 285; Masheck v. Railroad Co., 71 Mo. 276. Broadhead, Slayback & Haeussler and E. J. O'Brien for respondent. It is well settled that managers of street cars owe it as a duty to the pub......
-
Frank v. Free, No. 13946.
...the part of the driver to sustain the action. See Parsons et ux. v. Yeager Milling Co., 7 Mo. App. 594; Maschek v. St. Louis Railroad Co., 71 Mo. 276, loc. cit. 277; Lee v. Jones, 181 Mo. 291, 79 S. W. 927, 103 Am. St. Rep. 596. In this latter case, Judge Valliant has said (181 Mo. loc. cit......
-
Fry v. St. Louis Transit Co.
...ruling in that regard was according to the pronounced weight of authority in this state. Boland v. Ry., 36 Mo. 484; Mascheck v. Ry., 71 Mo. 276; Winters v. Ry., 99 Mo. 512, 12 S. W. 652, 6 L. R. A. 536, 17 Am. St. Rep. 591; Van Natta v. Ry., 133 Mo. 13; Jett v. Ry. (Mo. Sup.) 77 S. W. 739; ......
-
Frick v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.
...presumption that no child would be there. Mulherrin v. R. R. Co., 81 Pa. St. 375; Bannon v. R. R. Co., 24 Md. 125; Maschek v. R. R. Co., 71 Mo. 276; Gaynor v. R. R. Co., 100 Mass. 214; Hughes v. R. R. Co., 66 Mo. 325; Turner v. Thomas, 71 Mo. 596; Kay v. R. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 276; Morrissey......
-
Farris v. Cass Ave. & Fair Ground Ry. Co.
...v. Railroad Co., 36 Mo. 519; Tarwater v. Railroad Co., 42 Mo. 196; Railroad Co. v. Armstrong,52 Pa. St. 285; Masheck v. Railroad Co., 71 Mo. 276. Broadhead, Slayback & Haeussler and E. J. O'Brien for respondent. It is well settled that managers of street cars owe it as a duty to the pub......
-
Frank v. Free, No. 13946.
...the part of the driver to sustain the action. See Parsons et ux. v. Yeager Milling Co., 7 Mo. App. 594; Maschek v. St. Louis Railroad Co., 71 Mo. 276, loc. cit. 277; Lee v. Jones, 181 Mo. 291, 79 S. W. 927, 103 Am. St. Rep. 596. In this latter case, Judge Valliant has said (181 Mo. loc. cit......