Monroe v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 02 April 1923 |
| Citation | 257 S.W. 469,297 Mo. 633 |
| Parties | T. M. MONROE v. CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY, Louisiana & Mississippi Railroad Company, and John A. Brown, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
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.
To continue reading
Request your 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 ......