# Finnegan v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

> Supreme Court of Missouri · July 2, 1912 · 244 Mo. 608

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8018090

## Case

- **Full name:** MITCHELL FINNEGAN v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** July 2, 1912
- **Citations:** 244 Mo. 608; 149 S.W. 612; 1912 Mo. LEXIS 336
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lamm
- **Judges:** Beown, Brown, Ferriss, Graves, Holds, Kennish, Lamm, Remanded, Should, Stated, That, Trial, Valliant, Views, Woodson
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8018090

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION.
LAMM, J.
I concur in so much of the opinion of my learned brother Graves, as relates to error in instructions: As to reversing without remanding, this view of-it seems just to me:
In Banc it was suggested ore tenus (and not denied) that defendant’s printed rule relating to the junction in question was not a new rule, or fresh order, but had been in existence for several years prior to the *643 date indicated by onr present record and had appeared in defendant’s former publications of its rules. If this be a fact, it is of importance on the question whether the verbiage of the rule (to the knowledge of defendant) had received a practical construction, which the employees were acting on, or had been waived by defendant’s acquiescence. The rule is a prominent fact' in this case,, and this court, before finally cutting off plaintiff’s right to recover, should know the truth in that regard.
A new trial will develop the facts and the cause should be remanded for such new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8018090. Public record. Not legal advice.