Goodfellow's Executors v. Meegan

32 Mo. 280
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 32 Mo. 280 (Goodfellow's Executors v. Meegan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goodfellow's Executors v. Meegan, 32 Mo. 280 (Mo. 1862).

Opinion

Bates, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The cattle having been bailed by Meegan to Goodfellow, to be pastured by him for hire, — in this suit for the hire, it having been charged and proved that some of the cattle were not returned by Goodfellow to Meegan, it was incumbent upon Goodfellow’s executors to show that the loss of the cattle was not occasioned by his default. In other words, that he had used the degree of diligence required of him by his contract. The degree of diligence would depend upon the terms of the contract; but, whether it be ordinary or extraordinary, it was the burden of the plaintiffs to show that it was exercised. By the refusal of all of the instructions asked by the defendant, the court below seems to have assumed that Goodfellow was in no event responsible for the safe keeping of the cattle, even though they might have been lost by his gross negligence. This was error.

As to the proof of what were the terms of the contract, they might be proved by direct evidence; or, if it be proved that the contract was made so general as not to specify the particular terms from which the liabilities of the parties result, perhaps evidence might be given of a common understanding and usage, known to the defendant, that such general contracts implied certain specific terms. As the evidence of custom was given in this case, it was improper. It was only that it was not the custom to make certain contracts which were not illegal, and which the parties were competent to make. Such testimony is no evidence that a contract of that unusual character had not been made in this instance.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thummel v. Krewson
764 S.W.2d 700 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Heshion Motors, Inc. v. Western International Hotels
600 S.W.2d 526 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)
Nuell v. Forty-North Corporation
358 S.W.2d 70 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1962)
Dutton Dredge Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
29 P.2d 316 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
State Ex Rel. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Trimble
257 S.W. 104 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1923)
Bockserman v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.
152 S.W. 389 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Dalton v. Redemeyer
133 S.W. 133 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Dixon v. McDonnell
92 Mo. App. 479 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Holt Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Arthur Jordan Co.
57 N.E. 575 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
E. O. Stanard Milling Co. v. White Line Central Transit Co.
26 S.W. 704 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Cummings v. Mastin
43 Mo. App. 558 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 Mo. 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodfellows-executors-v-meegan-mo-1862.