Monroe v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Citation | Monroe v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, 297 Mo. 633, 257 S.W. 469 (Mo. 1923) |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1923 |
| Parties | T. M. MONROE v. CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY, Louisiana & Mississippi Railroad Company, and John A. Brown, Appellants |
Original Opinion Reported at 297 Mo. 633, 249 S.W. 644.
I concur in the result of this opinion, but not for the reasons stated therein. I fully recall the Steele Case, 265 Mo. 97, 175 S.W. 177, but it is not authority here. In that case the two statements were made at the same trial, and that was the matter discussed by Judge Faris. It was a much-discussed opinion at the time, and certainly goes as far as we should go. It suffices to say that it does not go far enough to be effective in any case where the two statements occur at different trials.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Cunningham v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.
...of an ordinance authorizes a recovery, where the injured person's own negligence causes or contributes to the injury. Monroe v. Railroad, 297 Mo. 633, 249 S. W. 644, 257 S. W. 469. But where the evidence shows, as in this case, that if the ordinance speed had been obeyed the accident would ......