• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/233/182.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. MOORE, 233 U.S. 182 (1914)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. MOORE, 233 U.S. 182 (1914)

    233 U.S. 182

    ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Piff. in Err.,
    v.
    H. F. MOORE, C. E. Robinson, and S. H. Smith.
    No. 451.

    Argued February 26, 1914.
    Decided April 6, 1914.

    Messrs. S. T. Bledsoe, J. R. Cottingham, and George M. Green for plaintiff in error.

    Messrs. John B. Daish, H. H. Smith, and J. W. Beller for defendant in error.

    Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

    The defendants in error brought suit in the district court of Lincoln county, Oklahoma, against the plaintiff in error, for damages, alleging that they were the owners of a certain race horse which had been shipped by [233 U.S. 182, 183]   them over the railroad of the plaintiff in error from Kansas City, Missouri, to Lawrence, Kansas, and which had been injured in transit. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants in error, which was affirmed by the supreme court of Oklahoma (36 Okla. 433, 129 Pac. 24).

    It appears that the horse, for the injury to which this suit was brought, was a part of the shipment under which the horse in the previous case of Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Robinson, just decided [ 233 U.S. 173 , 58 L. ed. --, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556], was carried as therein stated, and that the facts relating to the shipment and cause of injury set forth in the present case are the same as those in the Robinson Case. The supreme court of Oklahoma, after noticing the fact that, except as to the value of the animals, the extent of their injuries and the resulting damages, the two cases were identical in every material feature, followed the Robinson Case.

    The present case, therefore, is controlled by the decision in the Robinson Case, and from what we have there said it follows that the judgment here under review must be reversed.

    Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

    Mr. Justice Pitney dissents.

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw