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|
Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court. -- Hon. C. C. Bland, Judge.
(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.
[89 Mo. 107]
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 readingFREE SIGN UP