Seyfarth v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1873
• Citation: 52 Mo. 449
• Parties: CHARLES O. SEYFARTH, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS & IRON MOUNTAIN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

52 Mo. 449

CHARLES O. SEYFARTH, Respondent,

v.ST. LOUIS & IRON MOUNTAIN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1873.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Dryden & Dryden, for Appellant.

Edward C. Kehr, for Respondent.

EWING, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action to recover the value of goods delivered to, and received by the defendant as a common carrier, for transportation from Irondale to Allenville Station in this State. The goods consisted of a large chest and divers articles contained therein, which it is alleged were never delivered. The answer admits that the defendant received the goods and avers that they were delivered to the plaintiff. There was a trial by a jury and a verdict for the plaintiff for $373.00. No instructions were asked on either side.

The court, on the trial of the cause, permitted the plaintiff and his wife (who was examined as a witness) to give their opinion as to the value of the chest and its contents. And this is the only question the record presents. The contents of the chest, consisting chiefly of bedding, the wearing apparel of the family and a box of engraver's tools, were put in the chest by plaintiff's wife while he was absent. After the plaintiff in his testimony had enumerated a great many articles of the several classes mentioned in the petition, of which he said he was the owner and which he had left in charge of his wife, he was asked to give his opinion as to the value of the chest and its contents at the time of the shipment, supposing the articles he had mentioned to have been in the chest--having first stated that he knew their value. The answer was $350.00. On cross examination, he stated the value of a number of specific articles but could not give the value of others. The wife of the plaintiff who put the goods in the chest, gave a fuller and more minute description of the contents of the chest, which corresponded in the main with the articles mentioned in the petition; and after stating the value of a number of them, was asked if she knew the value of the chest and contents, to which she answered $400.00. These were the only witnesses who testified in the cause, no evidence being offered by the defendant.

It is insisted that the testimony as to the value of the goods in the chest was inadmissible, for the reason that there was evidence tending to show that more goods were put in the chest than are sued for. The plaintiff's wife after giving in detail...