Wright v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.

Citation94 S.W. 555,118 Mo. App. 392
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Decision Date07 May 1906
PartiesWRIGHT v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; Alonzo D. Burnes, Judge.

Action by William R. Wright against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. T. Herndon and J. G. Trimble, for appellant. E. C. Hall and W. S. Herndon, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

This is an action for damages on account of alleged negligent delay in the transportation of cattle to the Chicago market. The trial court gave a peremptory instruction to allow the plaintiff only nominal damages. The plaintiff's motion to grant him a new trial was sustained, and from that order defendant has appealed.

It appears that plaintiff shipped over defendant's road seven car loads of beef cattle from Trimble, Mo., to Chicago, Ill. That four of the cars were consigned to Strahorn, Hutton, Evans Commission Company, and the remaining three to the Lee Live Stock Commission Company; each company doing business at the Union Stock Yards at Chicago. The evidence tended to show that the cattle were loaded at Trimble into a special cattle train, and left that station at 5 o'clock of the evening of October 5, 1903, and arrived at Quincy next day, several hours after the usual time for making that station. That they left Quincy in the afternoon and arrived at Chicago after 1 o'clock p. m., when they should have gotten there at about 9 o'clock in the morning. That in consequence of the delay in getting into Quincy there was no time for unloading, resting, and feeding the cattle before starting on for Chicago. The evidence tended to show a delay in the run from Quincy to Chicago of from three to four hours, and that in consequence plaintiff failed to get the cattle on the favorable market of that day. The result was that both lots of cattle were held over; those consigned to the Lee Company until the next day (the 8th of October) when they were sold, and those consigned to the Strahorn Company until the following Monday, the 12th of the month. They were sold on the 8th and the 12th, but at less than if they had been transported with ordinary dispatch and sold on the morning market of day of arrival. That this loss to the plaintiff was occasioned by the fact that the cattle by being delayed were deprived of the usual time for rest, water, and feed at Quincy, whereby they shrunk in weight, and by further delay were not put into Chicago in time for the early and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Hull v. Cartin, 6706
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1940
    ... ... v. Blake , 54 Idaho 1, 27 P.2d ... 972, 91 A. L. R. 153; Common School Dist. v. Twin Falls ... Nat. Bank , 50 Idaho 668, 299 P. 662; Wright v ... [105 P.2d 206] ... B. & Q. Ry. Co. , 118 Mo.App. 392, 94 S.W. 555; ... International Harvester Co. v. Elfstrom , 101 Minn ... 263, ... attempting to deprive courts of any inherent or vested powers ... are invasion of judicial power and void. Martin Thoe v ... Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. , [181 Wis ... 456] 195 N.W. 407, 29 A. L. R. 1280; Annotation 29 ... [105 P.2d 208] ... A. L ... ...
  • Sikes v. St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 19, 1915
    ...Shaw, 70 Mo. 575; Walker v. Owens, 79 Mo. 568; Gilbert v. Railroad, 132 Mo.App. 697; Fullbright v. Railroad, 118 Mo.App. 482; Wright v. Railroad, 118 Mo.App. 392; v. Railroad, 137 Mo.App. 276; Muir v. Railroad, 167 Mo.App. 542; Produce Co. v. Railroad, 168 Mo.App. 168; Holland v. Railroad, ......
  • St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Zickafoose
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1913
    ...P. Ry. Co., 101 Iowa 178, 70 N.W. 119; Libby v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 137 Mo. App. 276, 117 S.W. 659; Wright v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 118 Mo. App. 392, 94 S.W. 555. The provision requiring notice in the present case is not confined to loss or injury to live stock covered by the c......
  • Kregain v. Blake
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1922
    ...document may be regarded as an original and is admissible in evidence. [Hay v. Fire Clay Co., 179 Mo.App. 567, 162 S.W. 666; Wright v. Railroad, 118 Mo.App. 392; v. Sandford, 134 Mo.App. 477, 114 S.W. 570; Leschen v. Brazelle, 164 Mo.App. 415, 144 S.W. 893.] However, in the case at bar ther......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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