TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Means

The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. George J. Means

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Means, 80 P. 604 (Kan. 1905)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 8, 1905
Docket
No. 14,071
Citations
80 P. 60471 Kan. 8451905 Kan. LEXIS 246
Disposition
Reversed.
Summary
Error from Woodson district court; Oscar Foust, 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

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

Per Curiam:

The Means brothers, who shipped cattle from Kansas to Chicago over the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe railway, claim damages by reason of negligent delay in the shipment and delivery. A condition of the contract was that the shipper should give written notice to the company of any claim for damages by reason of loss or injury to the stock before the *846 cattle were removed from the place of delivery, and before they were intermingled with other stock, and this notice was a condition precedent to a right of recovery. To a special question as to whether notice in writing was given to the company of the claim for damages before the cattle were removed from the station and stock-yards at Chicago the jury answered: “Yes, after the cattle were sold; but we don’t know whether the cattle were removed or not.” This answer is equivalent to a finding that no such notice was given before the cattle were removed. (Railway Co. v. Swarts, 58 Kan. 235 , 48 Pac. 953 .)

As the giving of notice was a condition precedent to a recovery the burden necessarily fell upon the plaintiffs to prove it. The case, therefore, falls fairly within the decision of Kalina v. Railroad Co., 69 Kan. 172 , 76 Pac. 438 . Following that case, it must be held that the contract provision was valid; that the burden of showing compliance with the condition as to notice rested upon the shippers; and that the finding of the jury that they did not know as to the removal of the cattle is to be treated as a negative answer, or that plaintiffs had failed in their proof. Having failed to show performance of the condition they must fail of recovery.

The judgment, therefore, is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the railway company.

How later courts describe this case

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

1906: 11907: 11910: 11915: 11927: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cornelius v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.87 P. 751 (Kan. 1906)
  2. Pioneer Trust Co. v. Combs255 P. 81 (Kan. 1927)
  3. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Theis152 P. 619 (Kan. 1915)
  4. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Coffin108 P. 480 (Ariz. 1910)
  5. Ware v. Spinney91 P. 787 (Kan. 1907)

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
Kalina v. Union Pac. R.R., 76 P. 438 (Kan. 1904) 26
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R.R. v. Swarts, 48 P. 953 (Kan. 1897) 17

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