TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Peters v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad

CATHERINE PETERS v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY

Peters v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R., 140 S.W. 1197 (Mo. Ct. App. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 7, 1911
Citations
140 S.W. 1197160 Mo. App. 6291911 Mo. App. LEXIS 694
Disposition
Reversed and remanded' (with directions).
Headnotes
The opinion of the Springfield Court of Appeals in this case (150 Mo. App. 721) is adopted as the opinion of the court.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. Bobt. M. Foster, 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. —

This is an action .commenced in the circuit court, of the city of St. Louis, by plaintiff, widow of one ’William W. Peters, for damages sustained by reason of his death. There were two counts in the petition, the first under section 5425, the second under sections 5426 and 5427, R. S. 1909'. Prom a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff on the first count, defendant appealed to this court. Yerdict and judgment were for defendant on the second count but *630 no appeal was taken "by plaintiff thereon. Pursuant to the provisions of an Act. of the General Assembly of this state, of June 12, 1900 (Laws 19091, p. 396, now section 3939, R. S. 1909), the cause was transferred by this court to the Springfield Court of Appeals, there •argued and submitted, and the judgment of the circuit court reversed and the cause remanded for trial on both counts of the petition. [See 150 Mo. App. 721 , 131 S. W. 917 .] Thereafter the cause was transferred back to us., the Supreme Court having- held the above act unconstitutional. [See State ex rel. Dunham v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 98 , 133 S. W. 336 ; State ex rel. St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 496 , 134 S. W. 538 ; State ex rel. O’Malley v. Nixon, 233 Mo. 345 , 138 S. W. 342 .] It has been 'argued and submitted to this court.

We see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the Springfield Court of Appeals and accordingly adopt the statement and opinion of that court as rendered by Judge Gray and reported as above as the statement and opinion of this court in this case. The judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the circuit court to proceed with the cause on the two counts of the petition and as indicated in the aforementioned opinion.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1931: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lajoie v. Rossi37 S.W.2d 684 (Mo. Ct. App. 1931)

Most recent

  1. Lajoie v. Rossi37 S.W.2d 684 (Mo. Ct. App. 1931)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
State ex rel. St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Nixon, 134 S.W. 538 (Mo. 1911) 52
State ex rel. Dunham v. Nixon, 133 S.W. 336 (Mo. 1910) 40
State ex rel. O'Malley v. Nixon, 138 S.W. 342 (Mo. 1911) 25
Peters v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R., 131 S.W. 917 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910) 9

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