Wilson v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1908 |
| Citation | 108 S.W. 612,129 Mo. App. 347 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | WILSON v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Howell County; W. N. Evans, Judge.
Action by H. B. Wilson against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
W. J. Orr, for appellant. N. B. Wilkinson, for respondent.
This plaintiff's petition contained two causes of action, but we are only concerned with one. He alleged that in January, 1906, he loaded at Willow Springs, Mo., on a car of the defendant company, a cargo of hogs destined for St. Joseph, Mo., which defendant contracted to carry to said city and deliver to the Lee Live Stock Commission Company; that, instead of doing so, defendant carried the hogs to Kansas City, and unloaded them there, and in consequence of such unlawful shipment plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $150; that the said cargo of hogs was purchased especially for the order of the Lee Live Stock Commission Company of St. Joseph, Mo. The case commenced before a justice of the peace, and we find no answer in the record. The evidence shows plaintiff shipped 135 hogs from Willow Springs, consigned to the Lee Live Stock Commission Company at St. Joseph, Mo. The bill of lading issued by defendant bound it to carry the hogs to Kansas City, and there turn them over to a connecting carrier to be hauled to destination. Instead of this being done, the hogs were unloaded at Kansas City, and never delivered to a connecting carrier. A stock quarantine was in force against Kansas City at the time and, in consequence of this, the hogs could not be moved after they were unloaded, and were sold for what they would bring, entailing a loss on plaintiff as alleged. The Lee Live Stock Commission Company had contracted to sell the hogs to some buyer near St. Joseph, but as they were stopped by defendant at Kansas City this contract could not be carried out. The hogs were not ready for slaughter, but were intended to be fattened before they were put on the market—were known as stock hogs, or feeders. The party who had agreed to purchase them intended to fatten them for the market. The undisputed evidence showed the hogs had no market value. Plaintiff testified to this, and he was the only witness who gave any testimony on the subject. At the conclusion of the evidence defendant requested a declaration that plaintiff was not entitled to recover more than nominal damages, and the refusal of this declaration is the main assignment of error.
Before taking up this assignment we will notice the minor contention that plaintiff lost nothing by the sale of the hogs at Kansas City, as the evidence goes to show that not he, but the commission company which had contracted for the sale of them stood the loss —that is, lost the commission which would have been earned. It was shown the prospective buyer agreed not to claim damages because of the nondelivery of the hogs, but how this proves not plaintiff, but the commission company sustained the loss consequent on defendant's failure to perform the contract to deliver them to a connecting carrier to be hauled to destination, we are unable to discern. Plaintiff was damaged by the breach of the contract unless he realized as much by the sale in Kansas City as he would have realized by the expected sale in St. Joseph. He might not be permitted to recover this amount of loss on account of his having given no notice to defendant that the hogs were shipped pursuant to a contract of sale; a question we will discuss. Though plaintiff may not be able to recover his loss or his recovery may be restricted by the facts, it is certain he sustained a loss.
But the chief contention of counsel for defendant is that, as there was no evidence to show plaintiff notified defendant at the time of shipment the hogs were being sent forward to carry out a contract for the sale of them, plaintiff was not entitled to recover the difference...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fehrenbach Wine & Liquor Company v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
...by a carrier, the measure of damages recoverable by the shipper, is the market value of the goods at the point of destination. Wilson v. Railroad, 129 Mo.App. 347; Atkisson v. The Castle Garden, 28 Mo. Austin v. Packett Co., 15 Mo.App. 197; Rogan v. Railroad, 51 Mo.App. 665; Gray v. Railroa......
-
Walton v. A. B. C. Fireproof Warehouse Co.
... ... State ex rel. v. Trimble, 257 S.W. 104, l. c. 107; ... Ozark Fruit Growers Association v. St. Louis and San ... Francisco R. R. Co., 46 S.W.2d 895, l. c. 896; Gash ... v. Mansfield, 28 S.W.2d 127; Kennedy v. Insurance ... Co., 76 S.W.2d 748; ... This rule is modified somewhat, however, in the case ... of goods which cannot be said to have a definite market ... value. In the case of Wilson v. St. Louis, S. F. Ry ... Co., 108 S.W. 612, 129 Mo.App. 347, it is held that the ... market value at destination, less cost of carriage, is the ... ...
-
Fehrenbach Wine & Liquor Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...shipped or failure to deliver same is the market value at the point of destination. Railroad v. Traube, 59 Mo. 355; Wilson v. Railroad, 129 Mo. App. 347, 108 S. W. 612; Medicine Co. v. Railroad, 126 Mo. App. 455, 104 S. W. 478; Warehouse Co. v. Railroad, 124 Mo. App. 545, 102 S. W. 11; Blac......
-
Green v. American Railway Express Co.
...relied upon to support both the objection to the testimony and to the instruction on the measure of damages is Wilson v. Railroad, 129 Mo. App. 347, 108 S. W. 612, 613. We do not find it applicable to this case. It was an action for the nondelivery of a shipment of hogs at destination. The ......