John Caskie Collet

The case involved lower landowners suing a railroad company for property damage caused when the railroad cut an opening in its embankment along Musselfork Creek, allowing floodwaters to flow in a concentrated stream onto the plaintiffs' farm below. The court held the railroad liable for the resulting damage and awarded the plaintiffs $1,500. It reasoned that Missouri follows the common-enemy doctrine for surface waters but requires dominant landowners to exercise reasonable care when altering artificial barriers, rather than permitting unrestricted diversion that foreseeably harms servient owners; the court examined the doctrine's development in state precedent, found the cut created an unreasonable concentration of flow without adequate drainage measures, and rejected application of a levee-maintenance statute because a prior contract allowed disconnection of the levees. The opinion also noted that overflow waters are treated as surface water and that no lateral ditches existed to mitigate the concentrated flow.

propertytorts & liability

The case involves a surety company that paid the City of Kansas City $44,444.44 to settle a claim on a bond guaranteeing the faithful performance of the defendant's duties as Director of Finance and now seeks reimbursement from the defendant under an indemnity agreement in his bond application. The petition alleges that the defendant breached his duties by issuing warrants that allowed public funds to be wrongfully withdrawn and converted by the City Manager. The defendant moved to dismiss, raising various challenges including whether the city suffered a recoverable loss, the scope of the defendant's duties, and other defenses. The court overruled the motion, holding that the petition sufficiently alleged facts supporting a claim under the indemnity agreement and that the defendant's arguments involved factual disputes or affirmative defenses not properly resolved at this stage.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a declaratory judgment action by an insurance company to determine coverage under an automobile liability policy that excludes claims when the vehicle is operated by anyone under age 16. The facts involved an accident in which a grandfather took the steering wheel from his 14-year-old granddaughter while she remained in the driver's seat, resulting in injuries and a death; the company sought to establish it had no duty to defend or indemnify related state-court suits. The court held for the insurer, concluding that the grandfather was not the operator within the policy's meaning because he lacked a position allowing control of substantially all vehicle functions. The reasoning focused on the policy's purpose to ensure an eligible driver could manage the car, the ordinary meaning of "operate," and the granddaughter's continued presence in the operator's position even after the grandfather intervened.

torts & liability

This case involved a former Pullman porter who sued his employer for reinstatement and recovery of wages after being discharged in November 1940. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff had pursued internal hearings through his union representative under the Railway Labor Act and then submitted the claim to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, which denied relief after finding the discharge was justified. The core reasoning was that the Board's award, which contained no money component, was final and binding under the Act, precluding further court review of the same dispute.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

This case concerned a federal eminent domain proceeding under 40 U.S.C. § 258a in which the United States condemned land in St. Louis, deposited an estimated compensation amount of $35,125 into court, and obtained an order withholding a portion of those funds to protect against the possibility that the final award would be lower. After a jury awarded $37,900, the owners moved for interest on the withheld sum in addition to interest already granted on the deficiency. The court held that the owners were entitled to six percent interest on the retained amount from the date they surrendered possession, modifying the judgment accordingly. The reasoning was that just compensation under the Fifth Amendment includes interest for any delay in payment, and the government's successful resistance to full distribution meant the deposit did not qualify as payment that would cut off interest under the statute.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

The case involved six Electreat Mechanical Heart devices shipped in interstate commerce from Illinois to Missouri, which the government sought to condemn and destroy under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as misbranded. The court ruled that the devices must be destroyed, finding their accompanying booklet contained numerous false and misleading claims about treating conditions ranging from headaches and paralysis to sexual weakness and weight issues via faradic electrical current. The core reasoning rested on expert physiological testimony establishing that the device's alternating impulses occurred too rapidly to cause beneficial muscle contractions and relaxations as claimed, and that the labeling failed to reveal material facts about its actual effects.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved a gasoline jobber (plaintiff) suing several oil companies for allegedly conspiring to artificially raise and fix tank car prices of gasoline sold in interstate commerce, claiming resulting damages of $60,000 from purchases made at the elevated prices. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. It held that while the pleading sufficiently alleged a conspiracy and the overt act of price increases, it did not establish that the plaintiff suffered any injury to its business, as higher prices could have increased or had no negative effect on the jobber's operations, unlike personal injury cases where harm is presumed. The court allowed the plaintiff ten days to amend the complaint or face dismissal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the scope of a 1917 easement granted for the construction and maintenance of oil pipelines and related telegraph lines across land in St. Louis County, Missouri, originally used for farming but later acquired by the plaintiff for potential residential development. The easement did not specify the exact route, limit the number of lines, or designate where additional lines could be placed relative to the original one. The court held that the easement permits the defendant pipeline company to select routes for additional lines at any time and to disturb the surface as needed for its purposes, subject only to the obligation to pay damages for injury to crops, timber, fences, or buildings; the plaintiff may use the entire surface otherwise. The court further ruled that the defendant has no duty under the easement to predefine locations, announce future plans, or resolve uncertainties, so the plaintiff could not recover damages solely from the resulting title issues or lack of specificity. The reasoning centered on the plain language of the easement granting broad rights to the grantee while providing compensation only for enumerated harms, without imposing affirmative duties to demarcate or limit the easement's exercise.

property

The case involved a Black Missouri citizen suing the University of Missouri registrar personally for $10,000 in damages after being denied admission to the graduate journalism program due to her race, even though equivalent instruction was unavailable at Lincoln University or elsewhere in the state. The action, based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 43, challenged the registrar's enforcement of segregation policies at the state's only public institution offering such training to white students. The court addressed a motion to dismiss by examining whether the petition sufficiently stated a claim, referencing the Supreme Court's Gaines decision and subsequent state law making Lincoln University's duty to provide equivalent facilities mandatory. Core reasoning held that the state and its institutions must receive an opportunity to establish the required program at Lincoln University before liability attaches, so the petition was potentially deficient without allegations of prior demand or insufficient time for compliance.

civil rights

This case involved the federal government's condemnation of private land in St. Louis for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, with the government depositing estimated compensation into the court registry and taking title in June 1939 under 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a. The City of St. Louis sought distribution from those funds for delinquent taxes (1938 and earlier), 1939 taxes, and 1940 taxes, claiming the deposited money stood in place of the real estate subject to tax liens. The court held that the fund was liable for the liens that had attached to the property, allowing the City to recover delinquent taxes with interest and penalties calculated only through August 31, 1939, and 1939 taxes on a prorated basis up to the June 16 transfer date with no penalties or interest, but denying any recovery for 1940 taxes because federal ownership eliminated the liability. The rulings rested on Missouri statutes governing when tax liens attach to real property and the principle that the deposit substitutes for the land without altering pre-existing obligations.

propertytaxesfederal power

The case involved a manufacturing company and its subsidiary seeking an injunction against labor unions and individual defendants to stop a secondary boycott, picketing, and efforts to force a collective bargaining agreement when the union no longer represented a majority of employees following a strike that began in September 1938. The court held that the National Labor Relations Act creates an exclusive duty for employers to bargain only with the true majority representative, rendering it unlawful for unions to coerce agreements with a minority and making such conduct enjoinable unless barred by the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The court reasoned by analogy to the Railway Labor Act that the NLRA imposes both affirmative and negative duties on employers, and that secondary boycott activities interfering with interstate commerce could also violate the Sherman Act. Jurisdiction was found to exist under federal question provisions due to the need to construe the NLRA, though any injunction would require compliance with Norris-LaGuardia procedural findings on harm, adequate remedies, and other elements.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a habeas corpus petition by Romie B. Shields challenging his detention in a Missouri state hospital after a Howard County probate court adjudged him of unsound mind and appointed a guardian. Shields, a longtime Kansas resident with substantial property there, had been lured to Missouri by his brother, arrested, briefly jailed, and committed without appearing at the August 31, 1938 hearing. The court held that the probate court lacked jurisdiction because the record affirmatively showed Shields was not a Missouri resident and because he was not permitted to attend the hearing despite statutory notice of that right. It reasoned that residence is a jurisdictional prerequisite that may be examined from the face of the record, that the statutory notice requirement is jurisdictional, and that confinement preventing attendance violated both the statute and due process. A further hearing on Shields’s current mental condition was scheduled.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a motion by defendants in Wheeler v. Lientz for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for costs. The plaintiff argued that the newly effective Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 12, had eliminated district courts' prior authority to entertain such motions because they were not listed among the permitted motions or defenses. The court held that motions for security for costs remained available, as Rule 12 addresses only defenses and objections while Rule 83 preserves district courts' longstanding power to adopt consistent local practices governing such matters. The court noted that the rules were not intended to abolish well-established procedures indirectly and found no injustice in requiring the security in this instance.

procedure

In this case, two women sued a grocery retailer after becoming ill from eating meat purchased by their husband and brother-in-law, claiming recovery under an implied warranty that the food was safe. The plaintiffs did not allege negligence, and the evidence showed none, so the suit turned on whether the warranty extended beyond the direct purchaser to family members who consumed the product. The court ruled for the defendant, entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It reasoned that Missouri law requires privity of contract for an implied warranty claim and that such warranties do not extend to third parties, including wives or other family members of the buyer, to avoid imposing undue burdens on retailers.

torts & liability

The case involves a lawsuit by Franklin against May Department Stores and its building manager Saifer for injuries to his wife caused by a revolving door at the store. The plaintiff alleged various acts of negligence in the maintenance and operation of the door. The court considered a motion to remand the case to state court, which depended on whether a valid claim was stated against the resident defendant Saifer. The court overruled the motion, holding that the petition alleged only non-feasance by Saifer rather than active negligence or complete exclusive control, thus not stating a cause of action against him.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between Donnelly Garment Co. and the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union involving collective bargaining, alleged boycotts of the company's products, and requests for injunctive relief. The court addressed motions to dismiss, which argued that the Norris-LaGuardia Act applied because the matter was a 'labor dispute,' thereby imposing conditions precedent that had not been met for granting an injunction. Plaintiffs contended the Act was inapplicable due to the Wagner Act's rules on employee representatives and the absence of a controversy over terms of employment. The court reasoned that the Wagner Act grants the National Labor Relations Board exclusive authority to determine proper employee representatives, and that the facts alleged met the statutory definition of a labor dispute under Norris-LaGuardia.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case involved a manufacturing company seeking a temporary injunction against AFL-affiliated unions to stop a strike, threats, violence, and picketing at its St. Louis plant. The employer had recognized an internal employee union as the sole bargaining agent and faced pending unfair labor practice charges and representation petitions before the National Labor Relations Board under the Wagner Act. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, reasoning that the Norris-LaGuardia Act restricted injunctive relief in labor disputes and that the later-enacted Wagner Act's requirement to deal exclusively with certified employee representatives created an exception to the general duty to negotiate under Norris-LaGuardia. The opinion noted that the employer was not required to negotiate with the defendant unions as a prerequisite to seeking relief.

labor & employmentfederal power

Grace Co., a garment manufacturer engaged in interstate commerce, sued Local Union No. 47 and others for an injunction to stop picketing, parades, intimidation, violence, and interference with deliveries and employees at its Kansas City plant. The union actions aimed to pressure the company into recognizing the defendant union instead of the company-sponsored Grace Company Workers’ Labor Union, with which the employer had negotiated a contract. The court sustained the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the dispute qualified as a labor dispute under the Norris-LaGuardia Act even though the union was not the employees’ bargaining representative. Because the complaint failed to allege compliance with the Act’s procedural requirements for obtaining injunctive relief in federal court, the requested injunction could not be granted.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory