TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bowman v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.

W. C. BOWMAN v. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY

Bowman v. Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co., 171 S.W. 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 7, 1914
Judges
Ellison
Citations
171 S.W. 642185 Mo. App. 251914 Mo. App. LEXIS 678
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
DAMAGES: Carriers of Live Stock: Depreciation in Value. Where one brings an action for damages for the negligence of a railroad company in shipping a carload of mules, they haying depreciated in value, but fails to give the proper notice of such damage, or injury, as provided in the bill of lading, ' he cannot recover as it falls within the rule in Hamilton v. C. & A: Ry. Co., 177 Mo. App. 145 and Johnson Grain Co. v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 177 Mo. App. 194.
Summary
Appeal from Vernon Circuit Court. — Hon. B. G. Thurman, Judge. (1) The burden was on the plaintiff to introduce evidence showing or tending to show the giving of the notices and also that he had instituted his suit within the ninety-one days. He failed to sustain this burden. Hamilton v. Railroad, 164 S. W. 248; Johnson Grain Co. v. Railroad, 164 S. W. 182; Joseph v. Railroad, 175 Mo. App. 18; McE-lvain v. .Railroad, 158 S. W. 464; American Silver Mfg. Co. v. Railroad, 174 Mo. App. 184; Clegg v. Railroad, 203 Fed. 971; Railroad v. Harriman Bros., 227 U. S. 657; Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Bailroad, 107 Fed. 628; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S: 491. (2) The live stock contract under which the shipment moved, expressing the terms and conditions on which the property was to ■ be transported, must be regarded as the sole evidence of the final agreement between the parties. Inman & Oo. v. Bailroad, 159 Fed. 960.

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

Opinion of the Court — Ellison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff brought this action against defendant for negligence in shipping a carload of mules from Walker, Missouri, to East St. Louis, Illinois, whereby they were injured and depreciated in value. He recovered judgment in the circuit court.

The contract of shipment provided that plaintiff should give written notice of his damages to defendant within five hours after the stock was unloaded. And that within thirty days of the happening of the injury he would file with defendant a written verified claim. It was further agreed in the contract of shipment that plaintiff would bring his action within ninety-one days from the date of the injury. None of these provisions was complied with.

The case as governed by the cases of Hamilton v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 177 Mo. App. 145 , and Johnson Grain Co. v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 177 Mo. App. 194 , 164 S. W. 182 , decided by this court on the same day.

The judgment will, therefore, be reversed.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1916: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Illinois Central Railway Co. v. W. J. Davis & Co.72 So. 874 (Miss. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Illinois Central Railway Co. v. W. J. Davis & Co.72 So. 874 (Miss. 1916)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Johnson Grain Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R., 164 S.W. 182 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914) 12
Hamilton v. Chicago & Alton R.R., 164 S.W. 248 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914) 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