McFall v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 11901.,11901. |
| Citation | 185 S.W. 1157 |
| Parties | McFALL v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Daniel E. Bird, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Suit by L. G. McFall against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Judgment affirmed.
W. F. Evans, of St. Louis, and Cowherd, Ingraham, Durham & Morse, of Kansas City, for appellant. H. H. McCluer and Omar E. Robinson, both of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is a suit for negligent delay in the shipment of cattle from Conway, Mo., via Springfield, to Kansas City, Mo. Conway is a station about 40 miles from Springfield on defendant's main line from Springfield to St. Louis. The cattle were loaded about 2 o'clock p. m. Saturday, December 14, 1912, on train 47, and left for Springfield, arriving there at 4:30 that afternoon. According to plaintiff's evidence, for years a train had left Springfield for Kansas City about 8 o'clock in the evening, taking with it cattle shipments coming that afternoon from Conway and neighboring points to Springfield, and arriving in Kansas City about 8 o'clock Sunday morning, where the cattle had all day Sunday and Sunday night to rest and recuperate and present a good appearance for the market Monday morning. The time ordinarily occupied in such transit from Conway to Kansas City was 18 hours, and the time taken to make the run from Springfield to Kansas City was 12 hours.
When the shipment in controversy reached Springfield, plaintiff's cattle were set on the siding. The train for Kansas City was made up, but plaintiff's car of cattle were not put into it, although a car that came into Springfield in the same train with plaintiff's cattle was put into the Kansas City train and left with it. Plaintiff's cattle were unloaded at Springfield about 9 o'clock that night, and the next morning about 10 were taken on to Kansas City, arriving there some time about midnight of Sunday. It is not clear when they were unloaded. But, when placed on the market Monday morning, the cattle were so stiff and sore that they would not stand, but would lie down rather than eat or drink. They were also so shrunken, dirty, and rough in appearance that they could not be sold on that day's market, and had to be held over till the next day, when there was a decline in market and a loss on that account as well as from loss of extra shrinkage.
The case originated in a justice court, and was taken from thence on appeal to the circuit court, where the jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor for $170. Defendant appealed.
The shipment is conceded to be an interstate shipment; for, although the points of origin and destination were in Missouri, yet the train, in making the journey, passed through Ft. Scott and Olathe, Kan., thereby making it an interstate shipment under the federal decisions.
During the examination of the jurors upon their voir dire it developed that one of them, Mr. Dudley, was, and had been for seven years, a local railroad freight agent. He was employed by another railroad, but he had the handling of cattle shipments, and questions of shrinkage of live stock and other questions of that nature arising from time to time came before him as a part of his business, and he testified he had his own ideas about such matters based upon his own knowledge and experience. He said, however, that he could try the case impartially and without relying upon his own knowledge, even though it did not agree with the witnesses. Upon objection to this juror the court excused him and obtained another on the panel from which the challenges were made.
The defendant complains of the court's action in excusing this juror. The trial court should not be convicted of error in so doing. The sole business of the juror in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cicardi Brothers Fruit & Produce Company v. Pennsylvania Company
... ... PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis" May 6, 1919 ... Appeal ... from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.--Hon. Thomas ... C. Hennings, Judge ... \xC2" ... v. Leslie, 242 U.S ... 448, 61 L.Ed. 423; C. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v ... Rankin, 241 U.S. 319, 60 L.Ed. 1022; McFall v. Ry ... Co., 185 S.W. 1145 (Mo. App.). (7) The parties cannot ... waive the terms of the contract under which the shipment was ... made ... ...
-
Oakley v. Richards
...191 Mo. 347; Theobald v. Transit Co., 191 Mo. 395; Billmeyer v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 6; State v. Faulkner, 185 Mo. 674; McFall v. Railway Co., 185 S.W. 1157; Heidbrink v. Railway Co., 133 Mo.App. 40; Carroll v. Railways Co., 137 Mo.App. 248. (8) There was no error in permitting witness ......
-
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co v. Nat'l Fruit Prod.S Co
...541, 60 L. Ed. 948; Phillips Co. v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 236 U. S. 662, 667, 35 S. Ct. 444, 59 L. Ed. 774; McPall v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 185 S. W. 1157; Olivit V. Penn. R. Co., 88 N. J. Law, 241, 96 A. 582. In Texas & P. R. Co. v. Leatherwood, 250 U. S. 478, 481, 39 ......
-
C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Nat. Fruit Co.
...S.Ct. 541, 60 L.Ed. 948; Phillips Co. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 236 U.S. 662, 667, 35 S.Ct. 444, 59 L.Ed. 774; McFall St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., (Mo. App.), 185 S.W. 1157; Olivit Penn. R. Co., 88 N.J.L. 241, 96 A. 582. In Texas and P.R. Co. Leatherwood, 250 U.S. 478, 481, 39 S.Ct. 517, 51......