Underwood v. Hines, No. 13593.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtTrimble
PartiesUNDERWOOD et al. v. HINES, Director General of Railroads.
Decision Date14 June 1920
Docket NumberNo. 13593.
222 S.W. 1037
UNDERWOOD et al.
v.
HINES, Director General of Railroads.
No. 13593.
Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.
June 14, 1920.

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.

TRIMBLE, J.


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. (It seems that, contrary to the usual events in such matters, the price of cattle rose, and was better on the day the cattle did get to market than it was on the day they would have gotten there, had the cars been furnished on the 2d of April. Consequently, no other loss was claimed, except the additional feed and labor during the week the cattle could not be shipped.) 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., No. 34288.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1937
    ...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......
  • Davis v. Graham, 1096
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 29, 1924
    ...Co., 241 U.S. 190; an agent has no lawful right to make a specific agreement for cars at a certain time, Underwood v. Director General, 222 S.W. 1037; Bradford v. Director General, 227 S.W. 889; there was no competent evidence as to weight of shipment at loading point, U. P. Ry. Co. v. Perr......
  • Metals Refining Co. v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., No. 19406.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 29, 1940
    ...(2d) 743, 101 Mo. 631; Mead v. M.-K. & T. Ry. Co., 183 Mo. App. 353; 49 U.S.C.A., sec. 20, par. 11, p. 87; Underwood v. Hines (Mo. App.), 222 S.W. 1037; Johnson v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 187 S.W. 282; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Bixby (Mo. App.)......
  • Harry and Florence Kelley v. Natl. Lead Co., No. 27235.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 20, 1948
    ...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 negligence on defendant's pa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 cases
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., No. 34288.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1937
    ...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......
  • Harry and Florence Kelley v. Natl. Lead Co., No. 27235.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 20, 1948
    ...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 negligence on defendant's pa......
  • Wall v. American Ry. Express Co., No. 15176.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 4, 1925
    ...nullify the rules and regulations on file, for that would work a discrimination among shippers. 272 S.W. 78 Underwood v. Hines (Mo. App.) 222 S. W. 1037; Produce Co. v. Railroad. 203 Mo. App. 100, 219 S. W. 660; Dunne & Grace v. Railroad, 166 Mo. App. 372, 148 S. W. 997; Sutton v. Railr......
  • German v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., No. 15110.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 9, 1925
    ...8004aa), and the federal decisions (see Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U. S. 560, 44 S. Ct. 410, 68 L. Ed. 848; Underwood v. Hines [Mo. App.] 222 S. W. 1037), that statute and federal decisions have no bearing do the law involving shipments between two points in Missouri. A contract to furnish a ca......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT