Robert C. White Live-Stock Commission Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 57 S.W. 1070,157 Mo. 518
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Decision Date: 30 June 1900
• Parties: ROBERT C. WHITE LIVE-STOCK COMMISSION CO. v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

57 S.W. 1070

157 Mo. 518

ROBERT C. WHITE LIVE-STOCK COMMISSION CO. v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 30, 1900.

SUPREME COURT — JURISDICTION — FEDERAL STATUTES — VALIDITY AND CONSTRUCTION.

Under Const. art. 6, § 12, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the supreme court in cases where the validity of a federal statute is drawn in question, the supreme court does not have exclusive jurisdiction in cases merely involving the construction of a federal statute; and the record failing to show any ruling by the trial court questioning the validity of any such statute, or any ruling on any of those statutes brought to the appellate court for review, it does not show jurisdiction in the supreme court.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county.

Action by the Robert C. White Live-Stock Commission Company against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company.

Judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals. Certified to supreme court, as involving construction of a federal statute. Remanded.

This is an action to recover the value of 46 head of cattle, alleged in the petition to be of the value of $600, and to have been received by the defendant from the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company at Minneapolis, in the state of Minnesota, to be delivered to the plaintiff at Kansas City, Mo., but which the defendant failed to deliver. The answer was a general denial. The case was submitted to the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts, in which it was agreed that "the amount plaintiff shall recover, if anything, shall not exceed $570.45, with 6 per cent. interest from May 22, 1896." The plaintiff asked the court to declare the law to be "that, upon the pleadings and facts agreed upon, plaintiff is entitled to recover"; and the defendant asked the court to declare the law to be "that plaintiff is not entitled to recover." The court gave the declaration of law asked by the plaintiff, refused that of the defendant, rendered judgment for plaintiff for the sum of $544.26, and thereupon, in due time, the defendant filed its motion for new trial on the grounds that the finding of the court "is against the law," "is against the evidence," "that upon the agreed statement of facts the finding should have been for the defendant," and "that the court erred in giving and refusing declarations of law." The motion for new trial being...