1 S.W. 286 (Mo. 1886), Melvin v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.

Citation:1 S.W. 286, 89 Mo. 106
Opinion Judge:Per Curiam.
Party Name:Melvin v. The St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, Appellant
Attorney:John O'Day for appellant. C. D. Jamison for respondent.
Case Date:June 07, 1886
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 286

1 S.W. 286 (Mo. 1886)

89 Mo. 106



The St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 7, 1886

Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court. -- Hon. C. C. Bland, Judge.


John O'Day for appellant.

(1) The court erred in overruling defendant's motion to require plaintiff to make his petition more specific and certain. Defendant had a right, when properly asked for, to have the occurrence of the negligence confined within reasonable bounds. It was easy for plaintiff to have stated this. It was all important to defendant to have it done. Allerby v. Powell, 29 Mo. 429; State v. Sherman, 42 Mo. 210. (2) Error was committed in submitting to the jury evidence that defendant was guilty of negligence in permitting dry grass to accumulate upon its right of way. There was no such allegation in the petition. Ely v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 34; Buffington v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 246; Eden v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 212; Bell v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 50; Price v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 416; Waldhier v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 514; Kenney v. Railroad, 70 Mo. 252; Carson v. Cummings, 69 Mo. 325; Bank v. Murdock, 62 Mo. 70; Weil v. Green Co., 69 Mo. 281.

C. D. Jamison for respondent.


[89 Mo. 107] Per Curiam.

The complaint states "That defendant, in said month of May, through its agents and servants, negligently permitted fire to escape from defendant's engines upon said road, whereby fire was communicated to plaintiff's fence," etc. No reason is assigned by the plaintiff why he could not state with more certainty the time when the fire escaped from the engine. Reason and justice dictate that the complaint should be more specific...

To continue reading