Meng v. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1904 |
| Citation | 183 Mo. 68,81 S.W. 907 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | MENG v. ST. LOUIS & S. RY. CO. |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. Zachritz, Judge.
Action by Edwin R. Meng against the St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred to the Court of Appeals.
Dawson & Garvin and Leonard Wilcox, for appellant. Seneca N. & S. C. Taylor and Thos. S. Meng, for respondent.
This is an action for $4,500 damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on September 11, 1901, at Pendleton avenue and its intersection with defendant's private right of way, in consequence of a collision between one of defendant's cars and the plaintiff's buggy. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,500, and the defendant appealed. The appeal was allowed to this court because the court instructed the jury that nine of their number could return a verdict, and the defendant contended that it was entitled to a unanimous verdict, under the Constitution of this state and the United States. The verdict of the jury was unanimous.
Heretofore the plaintiff moved this court to transfer this case to the St. Louis Court of Appeals on the ground that as this court, since this appeal was granted, had decided that the nine jury law is constitutional, there was no longer any constitutional question involved in this case. This court overruled that motion, thereby holding that, as a constitutional question was properly in the case in the circuit court, it remained in the case notwithstanding that in the meantime this court had decided that question in another case. Such decision in such other case would be controlling authority in this case, but it could no more eliminate the constitutional question from this case than the decision of any principle of law in one case could eliminate that question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Applegate v. Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford Conn.
...at bar, as, in our judgment, another proposition brings this case clearly within our appellate jurisdiction. In the case of Meng v. Railroad, 183 Mo. 68, 81 S.W. 907, Judge MARSHALL, speaking for Division No. 1, Judges BRACE VALLIANT concurring in the result only, held that the fact that th......
-
Applegate v. Travelers' Ins. Co.
...at bar, as, in our judgment, another proposition brings this case clearly within our appellate jurisdiction. In the case of Meng v. Railroad, 183 Mo. 68, 81 S. W. 907, Judge Marshall, speaking for division No. 1, Judges Brace and Valliant concurring in the result only, held that the fact th......
-
State v. Cowan
... ... Option Law "is no longer a constitutional question in ... this State," the Supreme Court in the later case of ... Meng v. St. L. & Sub. Ry. Co., 183 Mo. 68, 81 S.W ... 907, held that notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme ... Court as to the constitutionality ... to us to be controlling and to be in harmony with a long line ... of cases, commencing with that of State ex rel. Campbell ... v. St. Louis Court of Appeals, ... [124 S.W. 587] ... 97 Mo. 276, 10 S.W. 874, down to State ex rel. Curtice v ... Smith, 177 Mo. 69, 75 S.W. 625, in which ... ...
-
State v. Cowan
...the local option law "is no longer a constitutional question in this state," the Supreme Court in the later case of Meng v. St. L. & Sub. Ry. Co., 183 Mo. 68, 81 S. W. 907, held that, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of a law in a given case, whi......