Bowden et al. v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 1461.,1461. |
| Citation | 189 Mo. App. 148,175 S.W. 252 |
| Parties | BOWDEN et al. v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shannon County; W. N. Evans, Judge.
Action by Charles Bowden and another against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company and others. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
W. F. Evans, of St. Louis, and W. Orr, of Springfield, for appellants.
A jury trial resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for $200, and the defendants have appealed. `
The action is to recover damages on account of the burning of pasture, barn, fruit trees, some small fruits, and rails. It is alleged that the fire from an engine on defendants' road started the fire. The fire originated in dry vegetation upon the right of way of the defendants, and thence traveled in the direction of the wind to the plaintiff's property. The only testimony as to the origin of the fire is as follows: Guy Burrowes, a witness on behalf of plaintiff, testified that it started from the right of way; that he did not know how it came there, and did not know whether any train had passed there or not. Sid McDermott, a witness for plaintiff, testified that on the day of the fire a passenger train made two trips and the local made one from Gmndin to Willow Springs. Charles Bowden, a witness for plaintiff, testified:
Chas. Bowden, one of the plaintiffs, was asked if he knew how the fire started, and he stated that he did not see it start, but that he saw where it started on the right of way.
Following the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the other Courts of Appeal, we hold that there was no proof of the alleged origin of the fire. A reading of the opinions in the cases of Fritz v. St. Louis, Iron Mt. & S. Ry. Co., 243 Mo. 62, 148 S. W. 74, Peffer v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 98 Mo. App. 291, 71 S. W. 1073, and in numerous other cases cited by appellant, will sufficiently magnify the weakness of the proof in the case at bar as to render any further comment thereon improper here.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Lusk
...is not, of itself, sufficient to authorize a verdict for plaintiff in this class of cases. Fritz v. Railroad, 243 Mo. 62; Bowden v. Railroad, 189 Mo.App. 148; Manning v. Railroad, 137 Mo.App. 631; Peck Railroad, 31 Mo.App. 123; Peffer v. Railroad, 98 Mo.App. 291; Bank v. Railroad, 98 Mo. 33......
- Bowden v. Saint Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
-
Bowden v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
...of Springfield, for appellants. S. A. Cunningham, of Eminence, for respondents. ROBERTSON, P. J. This case has been here before (189 Mo. App. 148, 175 S. W. 252), and again defendants are appellants. A new trial resulted in another verdict for the plaintiffs, and appellants again urge that ......
-
Stolle Stone Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
...175 S.W. 250 ... 189 Mo. A. 683 ... STOLLE STONE CO ... MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO ... No. 13817 ... St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri ... April 6, 1915 ... Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge ... ...