Shelton v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1875 |
| Parties | BASIL SHELTON, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.
Ray & Ray, for Appellant.
Hale & Eads, for Respondent.
Action for killing a cow, based on § 43, p. 310, Wagn. Stat. The court sitting as a jury found for plaintiff, doubled his damages, and gave him judgment for $100.
The case of Cary against the defendant, decided at the present term, is, with one exception, precisely like this one; the only point of difference being that in the latter case it was in evidence that the animal was killed at a point where defendant's road passed through uninclosed prairie lands.
For the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment will be affirmed; as in the former case the judgment of the trial court was reversed for the sole reason that there was an entire absence of testimony on the point above mentioned.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waterbury v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.
... ... a passenger by railway has to be carried safely does not ... depend on ... wheels and was injured. A Kansas jury awarded a verdict of ... $12,500 against ... 2 Thomp.Neg ... [ 25 ] Harlan v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 65 Mo ... 22; S.C. 6 Cent.L.J ... Co. 59 Pa.St. 239; ... Watson v. Northern R. Co. 24 U.C.Q.B. 98; Fowler v ... Baltimore, ... [ 59 ] Nolan v. Brooklyn City R. Co. 87 N.Y ... 63; Germantown Passenger R ... ...
-
The Chicago v. Casey
... ... started out together from their homes in the city of Chicago, on an expedition into the country in ... fill the same station.The system by which railway companies conduct their business of carrying ... ...
-
Sanders v. Baird
...it has never been extended to such length as to control a case like this. See Bishop v. Union R. Co., 14 R.I. 314, 51 Am. Rep. 386; Shelton v. Ry., 60 Mo. 412. youth of the person injured will sometimes excuse him from concurring negligence, but no amount of youthful recklessness can supply......
-
Sams v. Pacific Indemnity Company
...be, it has never been extended to such length as to control a case like this. See Bishop v. Union R. Co., 14 R.I. 314; Shelton v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry. Co., 60 Mo. 412. "The youth of the person injured will sometimes excuse him from concurring negligence, but no amount of youthful reckl......