Macom v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

129 S.W. 65, 144 Mo. App. 683, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 403
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 6, 1910
StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.W. 65 (Macom v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Macom v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co., 129 S.W. 65, 144 Mo. App. 683, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 403 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

COX, J.

Action for damages for failure of defendant to deliver eleven boxes of snuff, weighing one hundred forty-five pounds, of the value of fifty dollars, which had been shipped over defendant’s road, consigned to plaintiff at Poplar Bluff, Missouri. Plaintiff offered testimony tending to sustain the allegations of his statement. Defendant offered the bill of lading, containing a clause providing that notice of loss or [684]*684damage should he given in writing within thirty days after delivery, or reasonable time for delivery, and that written notice was not given as required hy this provision of the contract. At the close of all the testimony the court gave a peremptory instruction to find for the defendant; plaintiff then took a nonsuit with leave to move to set the same aside which was overruled and he has appealed to this court.

The point is made by defendant that the record in this case does not show the saving of any exceptions by plaintiff to the action of the court in overruling his motion to set aside the nonsuit. An examination of the record sustains this contention. No exceptions having-been saved to the action of the court in refusing to set aside the nonsuit and give the plaintiff a new trial, there is nothing here for us to review. [State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 526, 29 S. W. 590; Hoffman v. Trust Co., 151 Mo. 520, 52 S. W. 345; State v. Libby, 203 Mo. 596. 102 S. W. 641.]

There is, therefore, nothing for us to do but to affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.

All concur.

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

Related

State v. Murray
29 S.W. 590 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Hoffman v. St. Louis Trust Co.
52 S.W. 345 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
State v. Libby
102 S.W. 641 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 S.W. 65, 144 Mo. App. 683, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macom-v-st-louis-iron-mountain-southern-railway-co-moctapp-1910.