TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Washburn v. Laclede Gas Light Co.

MAGDALEN WASHBURN v. LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY and UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER COMPANY, Appellants

Washburn v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 223 S.W. 725 (Mo. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 16, 1920
Judges
Williams
Citations
223 S.W. 725284 Mo. 1811920 Mo. LEXIS 60
Disposition
Affirmed (in part); reversed (in part).
Headnotes
For the reasons stated in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals in Washburn v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 202 Mo. App. 102, the judgment herein is affirmed as to the Laclede Gas Light Company, and reversed as to the Union Electric Light & Power Company.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. George H. Shields, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Williams

WILLIAMS, P. J.

Action for damages. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the circuit court against both defendants in sum of $7,250, and each defendant thereupon duly appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. That court delivered an opinion which will be found reported in 202 Mo. App. 102 . The Court of Appeals certified the case here because one of its judges deemed, the opinion contrary to previous decisions of this court.

A sufficiently accurate statement of the facts will be found stated in the majority opinion of that court. After carefully considering the case we have reached the conclusion that said majority opinion also correctly ’states the law of the case.

*182 Learned counsel for appellant Laclede Gas Light Company urge as ground for reversal two points which were not made in the Court of Appeals. These points have to do with plaintiff’s instructions numbered 1 and 3. We have carefully examined the additional points thus made, but do not find any matter of error therein which would justify a reversal, nor do we consider the points of sufficient importance to merit discussion. We merely make mention of the same so that it may be known that the points were given consideration.

For the reasons stated in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals we affirm the judgment against the defendant Laclede Gas Light Company, and reverse the judgment against the defendant Union Electric Light & Power Company.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1926: 11931: 11937: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Freeman v. Terminal Railroad Assn.107 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. 1937)
  2. Neal v. Curtis & Co. Manufacturing Co.41 S.W.2d 543 (Mo. 1931)
  3. Waggoner v. Bank of Bernie281 S.W. 130 (Mo. Ct. App. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Freeman v. Terminal Railroad Assn.107 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. 1937)
  2. Neal v. Curtis & Co. Manufacturing Co.41 S.W.2d 543 (Mo. 1931)
  3. Waggoner v. Bank of Bernie281 S.W. 130 (Mo. Ct. App. 1926)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Washburn v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 214 S.W. 410 (Mo. Ct. App. 1919) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list