Underwood v. Hines
Citation | 222 S.W. 1037 |
Decision Date | 14 June 1920 |
Docket Number | No. 13593.,13593. |
Parties | UNDERWOOD et al. v. HINES, Director General of Railroads. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Callaway County; David H. Harris, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by J. D. Underwood and E. R. Underwood, comprising the firm of Underwood & Sons, copartners, and another, against Walter D. Hines, Director General of Railroads. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Harris & Price, of Columbia, and J. W. Jamison, of St. Louis, for appellant.
This is an action for damages against the Director General of Railroads, based upon the violation of an oral contract made by the station agent of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company (in the hands of Receiver Schaff) at Tebbetts, Mo., with plaintiff, whereby said agent agreed to have three empty cattle cars at said station on April 2, 1918, ready for plaintiffs' use in the shipment of cattle from said station in Missouri to the National Stockyards in Illinois. Plaintiffs say that, relying upon the contract made on the 30th of March, 1918, to have said cars ready on the 2d of April, they delivered said cattle at said station; but, said cars not being furnished, they were required to keep and feed said cattle until a week later, when the cars were furnished on April 9, 1918. Wherefore they sue for $200, the bill for the extra feed and labor required to care for them during the week they were unable to ship. At the close of plaintiffs' case, and again at the close of the entire case, the defendant asked a demurrer to the evidence which the court refused to give. The jury returned a verdict of $150, upon which judgment was rendered, and the defendant has appealed.
The shipment in contemplation, and for which the cars were to be used, was an interstate shipment; and no verbal agreement for shipment in interstate commerce can be relied upon under the Carmack Amendment (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8604a, 8604aa), which requires a written contract. Thee v. Wabash R. Co., 217 S. W. 566. However, if it can be said that the contract in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., 34288.
...Co., 204 N.W. 27; Saitta & Jones v. Railroad Co., 179 N.Y.S. 471; American Ry. Ex. Co. v. Peninsula, 130 Atl. 346; Underwood v. Hines, 222 S.W. 1037; Winn v. American Exp. Co., 128 N.W. 663; Hamlen & Sons v. Railroad Co., 212 Fed. 324; Pacific F. & P. Co. v. Ry. Co., 186 Pac. 852. (d) The R......
-
May Department Stores Co. v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
......Ry. Co., 204 N.W. 27; Saitta & Jones v. Railroad Co., 179 N.Y.S. 471; American. Ry. Ex. Co. v. Peninsula, 130 A. 346; Underwood v. Hines, 222 S.W. 1037; Winn v. American Exp. Co., 128 N.W. 663; Hamlen & Sons v. Railroad. Co., 212 F. 324; Pacific F. & P. Co. v. Ry. ......
-
Kemper Mill & Elevator Co. v. Hines
......Underwood v. Hines, 222. S.W. 1037; King v. Barbarin, 249 F. 305; Georgia. Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190, 60 L.Ed. 951; McGinn v. Ry. & Nav. Co., 265 F. 84;. Brockman Comm. Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. 195 Mo.App. 615;. Aradalou v. Railroad, 114 N. E. (Mass.) 299;. Lewis Poultry Co. v. ......
-
Kelley v. National Lead Co.
...... Sec. 309, pp. 34-5; Evans v. Massman Const. Co., 343. Mo. 632, 122 S.W.2d 924; Kenton v. Massman Const. Co. (Mo.), 164 S.W.2d 349; Underwood v. Hines, 222. S.W. 1037. (2) The Court erred in giving plaintiffs'. instruction No. 1. (a) Said instruction submitted no specific. acts of ......