Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdamagesnegligencewill
contractnegligencesustainedappellee

Related Cases

SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc. v. Nelson, 540 S.W.3d 539, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 374
View Case »
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686
View Case »
Paterek v. Petersen & Ibold, 118 Ohio St.3d 503, 890 N.E.2d 316, 2008 -Ohio- 2790
View Case »
Brown v. Collins, 53 N.H. 442, 1873 WL 4192, 16 Am.Rep. 372
View Case »
Moody v. Martin Motor Co., 76 Ga.App. 456, 46 S.E.2d 197
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 32 S.W. 225

Facts

J. T. Williams sued the St. Louis Southwestern Railroad Company for negligence after the company retained his cattle upon arrival at their destination. The railroad demanded a higher freight charge than what was due before releasing the cattle, which Williams refused to pay. As a result, the cattle were held without feed for an additional day, leading to a loss in weight and damages for Williams.

The appellee demanded the cattle upon their arrival at destination, but the agent, it seems, exacted of appellee, as a condition to delivery, that he pay a greater freight charge than was due, which appellee declined to do; whereupon the railway company retained the cattle until the next day, without feed.

Issue

Did the railroad company act negligently in the shipment of cattle by retaining them without feed and demanding an excessive freight charge?

Did the railroad company act negligently in the shipment of cattle by retaining them without feed and demanding an excessive freight charge?

Rule

The act of the legislature of March 4, 1891, makes it unlawful for any person to limit by stipulation in a contract the time for the bringing of an action thereon to a shorter period than two years.

Act March 4, 1891, makes it unlawful for any person to limit by stipulation in a contract the time for the bringing of an action thereon to a shorter period than two years.

Analysis

The court applied the rule regarding the limitation of time for bringing actions to determine that the contractual clause requiring suit to be brought within 40 days was invalid. The court also found that the evidence presented by Williams regarding the condition and weight of the cattle was admissible. The railroad's negligence was established by the fact that they withheld the cattle without feed, which directly caused the loss in weight and damages.

The judgment of the court on the question of negligence is sustained by the facts. The appellee demanded the cattle upon their arrival at destination, but the agent, it seems, exacted of appellee, as a condition to delivery, that he pay a greater freight charge than was due, which appellee declined to do; whereupon the railway company retained the cattle until the next day, without feed. Loss in weight, resulting from this fact, was the cause of appellee's damage.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, ruling in favor of Williams due to the railroad's negligence in handling the cattle shipment.

But we dispose of it as presented by the record, and therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

Who won?

J. T. Williams prevailed in the case because the court found that the railroad's actions constituted negligence, leading to damages for the loss of weight of the cattle.

The judgment of the court on the question of negligence is sustained by the facts.

You must be