Rawie v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 30 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | 25023 |
| Parties | EMMETT J. RAWIE, Administrator of Estate of JOHN COONEY, v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY, WILLIAM F. WITTROCK, ST. LOUIS MERCHANTS BRIDGE TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY, FRANK E. BARNES and ALFRED SCHWARTZ; CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY and WILLIAM F. WITTROCK, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Reported at 310 Mo. 72 at 103.
Original Opinion of July 30, 1925, Reported at 310 Mo. 72.
H. J Nelson, of St. Joseph, and Douglas W. Robert, of St. Louis for appellants.
John F Clancy and Mark D. Eagleton, both of St. Louis, for respondent rawie.
J. L. Howell and R. E. Blodgett, both of St. Louis, for respondents St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal Ry. Co. and Alfred Schwartz.
On Motion to Transfer.
ON MOTION TO TRANSFER TO COURT IN BANC.
The fact that both sides are appellants in this case (the plaintiff, who appealed as to the adverse decision against him and in favor of St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal Railway Company, and Frank Barnes and Alfred Schwartz individual defendants, and defendants, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company and William F. Wittrock, who appealed from a judgment against them and in favor of plaintiff) has occasioned some misunderstanding. This case is the appeal of the defendants C. B. & Q. Railroad Company and Wittrock, and is our Number 25023. The plaintiff's appeal is our Number 25450, and is on our docket for the January Call of the October docket. In the Assignment of Errors in this case, the appellants charge no error upon the part of the trial court in taking the case from the jury as to the three other defendants. [See brief of C. B. & Q. Railroad Co., and Wittrock, p. 10.] Of this the plaintiff complains, but his appeal is yet pending on our docket, as above stated. Paragraph 12 of our opinion, as filed, had no place in this case, under the circumstances. Our original opinion indicates that all four members of the court at least concurred in the result, which was the affirmance of the judgment as to the C. B. & Q. Railroad Company and Wittrock. Woodson, J., upon whose alleged dissent, the motion to transfer is based, understood that he concurred in the result of the opinion and in all the opinion, except the discussion in Paragraph Three of the opinion, as to Instruction 2. In some of that language he did not concur, but he did concur in all other portions...
To continue reading
Request your trial