Kellerman v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad

34 S.W. 41, 136 Mo. 177, 1896 Mo. LEXIS 318
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedDecember 1, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 34 S.W. 41 (Kellerman v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad) 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
Kellerman v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad, 34 S.W. 41, 136 Mo. 177, 1896 Mo. LEXIS 318 (Mo. 1896).

Opinion

DIVISION TWO.

Burgess, J.

Plaintiffs who were partners at the time of entering into the contract out of which this controversy arose, brought this suit against defendant to recover damages from it, as a common carrier, for the breach of a contract to transport from Maryville, Missouri, to Kansas City, Missouri, one bull.

In the circuit court plaintiffs recovered judgment from which said judgment defendant appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals, where the judgment was affirmed, but- on dissent by one of the members of that [181]*181court the cause was certified to this court on the ground that the opinion of the court of appeals is in conflict with the decision of the supreme court.

The petition alleges that the value of the bull was $250, which defendant agreed, in consideration of the regular tariff rate per car to be paid to it by plaintiffs, to transport from Maryville to Kansas City, Missouri; that defendant never carried the bull to the place of destination nor was said bull ever delivered to plaintiffs, but had been wholly lost to them through the negligence of defendant.

Defendant answered denying that it had neglected to perform its duty as a common carrier in the transportation of the bull, and alleged that while transporting it with due care it died in the car while in transit, and for that reason was not delivered at the place of destination.

The answer further alleged that the animal was shipped under a special contract by which it was expressly agreed between plaintiffs and defendant that in case of loss of the bull its value should not exceed $50, whether such loss resulted from -accident or negligence on the part of defendant, and that defendant did not assume a liability to exceed that sum.

By replication plaintiffs admitted that their agent signed a contract for shipment prepared by the agent of defendant, but plaintiffs state that such contract was prepared without any suggestion, statement, or word from them or their agent as to the value of said bull; that defendant did not enquire as to the value nor did plaintiffs fix it; that no agreement was made as to the rate based upon reduction; that the rate of freight was not fixed, but the same was to be fixed at destination.

The bull was transported under a bill -of lading issued by defendant to plaintiffs, and signed by their agent for them, which reads as follows:

[182]*182“Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluees Baileoad.
“live STOCK CONTRACT.
“Live stock in quantities less than a full car load, will be charged for according to the company’s schedule of rates in effect from time to time.
“Live stock in car loads or less, will not be taken unless this contract is and the shipper. ^|r|cutedby the company’s agent
“Different kinds mklive stock must not be loaded 'in the same car. 't
“Agents of this j^dimpany are not authorized to agree to forward live,] stock to be delivered at any specified time, or for £$-iy)partieular market.
“Current rules vplLgovern in passing owners .or their agents in charge of live stock.
“Parties so passed ukust ride in the caboose attached to the train carding the stock.
. “Agents at stations Where stock is loaded will give no passes, but the name |r names of the person or persons who are actually entitled to pass free with the stock, must be enteredfinij ink on the back of the contract, by the party himself, which, when certified to by the company’s agent, is authority for conductor of train to honor same.
“Draw a pen through lines not filled out.
“Agents will permit only the names oe the owners OR BONA EIDE EMPLOYES WHO ACCOMPANY THE STOCK, TO BE ENTERED ON THE BACK OE THE CONTRACT, WITHOUT REGARD TO PASSES ALLOWED BY NUMBER OE CARS.
“The contract, when endorsed by the person in charge, and signed in ink by agent, will entitle such, person or persons to ride on same train with stock to care for same, but will not entitle holder of contract to [183]*183ride on any other train, nor will contract he accepted for passage on any passenger train'.
“Conductor of freight train must punch contract, or in absence of punch, will endorse'his name on back of contract when presented for passage.
“Live stock contracts are not good for return passage. Parties entitled to return passage will be provided with Drover’s return tickets, on application to proper office. Conductors will be held strictly responsible for permitting persons to ride on stock contracts, except when in charge of live stock.
“An addition of 25 per cent, will be made to the rate for each 100 per cent, or fraction thereof, declared by the shipper to be the valuation of his live stock, above the valuation set forth below. ' And in no event shall the company be liable for loss of, or damage to said live stock, to an amount exceeding such declared valuation.

[184]

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

Related

Kaumans v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
272 S.W. 1058 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1925)
Schade v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
221 S.W. 146 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)
Botts v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.
177 S.W. 746 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1915)
Donovan v. Wells, Fargo & Co.
177 S.W. 839 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
Blair v. Wells-Fargo & Co.
135 N.W. 615 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
Drey & Kahn Glass Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
136 S.W. 757 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
McElvain v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
131 S.W. 736 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Van Buskirk v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railway Co.
128 S.W. 216 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Robert v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
127 S.W. 925 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Holland v. Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
123 S.W. 987 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
McIntosh v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co.
105 P. 66 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1909)
Burgher v. Wabash Railroad
120 S.W. 673 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Blackmer & Post Pipe Co. v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad
119 S.W. 13 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Mires v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
114 S.W. 1052 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
George v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
113 S.W. 1099 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
Hancock v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
111 S.W. 519 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
Meyers v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
96 S.W. 737 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Phoenix Powder Manufacturing Co. v. Wabash Railroad
94 S.W. 235 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Hendricks v. Vivion
94 S.W. 318 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 S.W. 41, 136 Mo. 177, 1896 Mo. LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kellerman-v-kansas-city-st-joseph-council-bluffs-railroad-mo-1896.