Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1881-12-17
INTERESTING DECISION REGARDING
THE LIABILITY OF COMMON
CARRIERS.
Especially OF Interest TO stock
shippers.
In THE SUPREME Court OF Mo-,
October Term, 1881. !
James w. Harrison, respondent,

1t its depot in Lexington, on the day t
lnd year last aforesaid; that defen- Q
iant entered into said contract with t
full knowledge that plaintiff was c
shipping said cattle to ST. Louis for q
The purpose of selling the same on a
speculation; that plaintiff wholly IL
failed to furnish the said thirteen +,
cars on the 25th of June, 1877, aud .
" ould not, and did not provide plain
tiff any means for the transportation {
Of said cattle, nor would hot receive
said cattle for transportation till ,
Tuesday evening of June 26, 1871; J
that if plaintiffs cattle had been re-
ceived aud shipped in the cars agreed
to BIZ furnished on the 25th oil une. they
would have reached St. Louis on the
26th of June, 1877, but that in con-
sequence Of defendants said failure,
th8cattle did not reach st. Louis till
the evening of the 27, b of June;that OH
the 26th of June plaintiffs cattle were
worth in st. Louis six aud half
cents per pound gross, and were only
worth OH the evening of the 27tb, tive
and . half cents per pound that ny
reason of defendants failure to fur
nish cars on the 25th of June aud ship
as agreed, plaintiff had sustained that
loss "a we'll as loss for extra shrinkage
Of the cattle while detained at Lex
ington, aud extra expense incurred
in caring for them, for all of which
he asked judgment.
The defendants answer is as fol- |
lows:
Defendant deuies each and every
allegation in said petition contained,
aud for other and further answer and
defense herein defendant says, that
any damages sustained by the LAM
| tiff in this case were the result OF his
own negligence and careless acts and
conduct and want of proper care aud
prudence directly contributing to
produce the same.
And for other aud further answer
aud defense herein defendant says,
that by the rules, regulations and di-
re,,tions of the defendant in force at
the time the said contract to furnish
cars to plaintiff as he alleges, adopt
cd, issued and published for the in
formation and government Of deten-
dant's agents, aud the shippers of live
stock and other freights over deiend-
ants railroad and we'll known to this
/ plaintiff ana his agents, or might by
the exercise of ordinary care aud pru-
dence have been known, provided
sThat no agent of the company is
authorized to agree to furnish cars
8 for live stock. grain or other freight
; at any specified time, and will make
; requisition for cara in the order in
) which shippers have applied for them,
and when received will distribute
them in like manner"
And defendant further AYERS that
: any alleged contract between the
It plaintiff herein, and any agent OF
agents of defendant to furnish hin
cars for the shipment Of live stock a
any particular place or any given OF
!, stated tiEae, was in violation of suct
:. rules and regulations. and was nul
and VOID and in no manner binding
~ upon this defendant.
n And for other aud further answe
and defense herein defendant says
If that the cars were prevented fron
arriving at Lexington at the tim
in plaintiff wished them 10 be there b,
l. an unavoidable accident and delay
and having fully answered defendan
ly asks to he hence discharged with it
10 costs.
n On the trial of the cause plainti
at obtained judgment for the sum q
r, $2,76O, from which defendant has al
or pea!ed, and among others assigns fo
error the action OF the court III striB
" ing out Oh plaintiffs motion the fo
lowing portion OF the answer viz
ssAud for other aud further answe
and defense herein, defendant say
that auy damages sustained by th
plaintiff in this case were the resu
a. Of his own negligent and careless ac
n. and conduct aud want Of proper cal
Il. aud prudence directly contrlbutin
to produce the same.
". Waving the question as to whetht
the defense attempted 10 be set u
M was or not inconsistent with defer
ma dauts general denial the action of Il
nj. court in striking it out may we'll
he sustained on the authority of the ca
ot of Wsldbier VS.. H. & St. Joe r.
he Co., II Mo-, SIG, when it was he
40 THAT petition by an employe atatil
he without any specific facts, that plai
di. tif was injured in consequence of u
fhe negligence OF railroad company
Ia using defective machinery, aud
he running aud in managing Its railro
nd and cars wobd be fatally defective
A. If necessary to state the particul
Re. facts constituting negligence befo
tn q railroad company eau be made liat
ot for the consequences of negl,gen,
ss 1t follows necessarily that when su
an. company seeks exemption from !
!, in 6ility TO the party complaining,
nat the ground that the injury complain
a. of was Occasiuned by the negligel
and of the other party, that it should a
ter. set up the facts constituting su
nto negligence.
to- The action of the court in sirik
ana out of defendant's answer the fvllo
,hs ing words, cor might by the exerc
ha OF ordinary care aud prudence ha
A. been known" is also assigned
,I;o error.
,hs AS will be seen from the answer
,hs AYERS "that the station agent had
,n,v authority to make the contract 81
|, ~ upon, and thst plaintiff knew Il
I.n0 fact tor might by the exercise of
~. diuary care aud prudence havek kuo
ond itO
at,o IL may we think be safely sffirn
that a station [ageu, clothed with
power, and whose duty il is to rece
aud forward freight, who makes a c.
1h' tract within the scope Of his appar
authority thereby binGs the comp,
the be represents although in max
st.r such contract he may have exceed
n If his authority, and when such CT
hv pany seeks to absolve Itself from
ali billiy arising under such contract
oma the ground that the agent althOt
,cot. apparently authorized to make it
lona fact bad no such authority, it Ill
A.. show that the party with whom
orto contract was made had knowledge
,rdI. the fact that the agent was acting
,art. yohd hls authority. Tnis princi
the ID sanctioned by the following
;nrv thorlties: 2 R'd. on Rail. p,
Ia NJ Sto. ou Ayen. 443, and sec. l27 Pr
a, vs. II. & ST. ,e Il II. Co., 62 \
$40 Norihrup vs.. Ims. Co., Al \
439; Dcning va. Railroad. 4S n.
slice AZ; Wilson VS.. Y. N. K. Il. Co.,
Eug. Law and Equity. 557-9; b.
U al OHIO r. X. Co.. vs. Bfady 80 NO,
N at Ken vs. William Rer. SO. La the
case cited 1t WAS expressly held
40; carrier who sought to charge pl
It'll wiki knowledge VI notice pa