Case ID: neb_84/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Root, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James M. Kyle, appellee, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, appellant.
    Filed June 11, 1909.
    No. 15,383.
    Carriers: Delay in Shipment. Sections 10606 and 10607, Ann. St 1907, are valid, and in an action thereunder, where plaintiff fully proves all of the allegations of his petition, and defendant does not controvert said proof or establish any defense to the action, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
    Appeal from the district court for Merrick county: James G-. Reeder, Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      J ames E. Kelby, Frank E. Bishop and Patterson & Patterson, for appellant.
    
      Martin & Ayres, contra.
    
   Root, J.

This action was instituted to recover liquidated damages for defendant’s failure to transport plaintiff’s live stock as rapidly as required by sections 10606 and 10607, Ann. St. 1907. Defendant did not plead any defense other than a general denial, and the affirmative allegation that plaintiff accompanied his stock, and any damage sustained by said shipment was the .result of his oavu negligence and carelessness. On the trial plaintiff made proof of the allegations in his petition, and defendant did not introduce any evidence whatever. In its brief defendant assails the validity of the law, and criticises plaintiff’s testimony as to the time consumed by defendant on said trip in setting out and picking up live stock not owned by plaintiff. None of the instructions are criticised, and in tlie state of tlie record, and for the reasons stated in Cram v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., ante, p. 607, the case is

Affirmed.