19 S.W. 826 (Mo. 1892), The Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. The Kansas City, Independence & Park Railway Company

Citation19 S.W. 826, 110 Mo. 510
Opinion JudgeBlack, J.
Party NameThe Chicago & Alton Railroad Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Kansas City, Independence & Park Railway Company et al
AttorneyGates & Wallace for plaintiffs in error. Karnes, Holmes & Krauthoff for defendants in error.
Case DateJune 06, 1892
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 826

19 S.W. 826 (Mo. 1892)

110 Mo. 510

The Chicago & Alton Railroad Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.

The Kansas City, Independence & Park Railway Company et al

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

June 6, 1892

Error to Jackson Circuit Court.

Reversed and remanded.

Gates & Wallace for plaintiffs in error.

The demurrers of the defendants admit the allegations of the petition, and, under the provisions of the code allowing any relief consistent with facts and the general prayer of the petition, the demurrers must be taken simply as denying the equity of the bill. Under the prayer the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief within the power of a court of equity which is called for by the facts stated in the bill. The right is plain and expressly given by the statute, and the violation of it is admitted by the defendants. That there must be a remedy for every wrong is a maxim of universal application. There is no remedy in any ordinary suit at law. Indeed, it was not claimed by the defendant's counsel that there was an adequate legal remedy. On the other hand the power of a court of equity to give redress in a variety of ways seems plain. Treat the acceptance of the award of the commissioners by the defendants, and their proceeding to put in their crossing as incurring an obligation to comply with its terms, and will not a court of equity enforce specific performance of the contract? The remedy by injunction is also applicable. R. S. 1879, sec. 2722; Bispham's Equity, secs. 399, 400, et seq.; Mills on Eminent Domain, sec. 214; Lewis on Eminent Domain, secs. 643, 644; Young v. Railroad, 28 Wis. 171; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 288; Carpenter v. Railroad, 24 N.J.Eq. 249; Railroad v. Railroad, 50 Vt. 452; Railroad v. Railroad, 4 Woods, 360.

Karnes, Holmes & Krauthoff for defendants in error.

(1) The clause in the award on which this action is founded is surplusage and void under the bill of rights, article 2, section 21, constitution, 1875. Section 2736, Revised Statutes, provides that the property-owner may "enforce payment of the award by execution." In this case, there being no peculiar benefits to the remainder of the railroad lands of plaintiffs in error, the constitution requires compensation in money. Dougherty v. Brown, 91 Mo. 26; Railroad v. County, 16 Wall. 667; Bigelow v. Railroad, 27 Wis. 478; Sedalia v. Railroad, 17 Mo.App. 105...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
10 practice notes
  • 24 S.W. 478 (Mo. 1893), The Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad Company v. The Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 16, 1893
    ...and third points are not well taken. (3) The court was under no legal obligation to instruct the commissioners. See Railroad v. Railroad, 110 Mo. 510. (4) The appellants were not entitled, under the statutes or constitution, to have the report set aside as a whole, as a matter of right, and......
  • 73 S.W. 485 (Mo. 1903), The State ex rel. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway Co. v. Dearing
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 20, 1903
    ...the point and manner of crossing is given by statute, and its award stands as a contract between the two companies. Railroad v. Railroad, 110 Mo. 510. (7) These exceptions amount to nothing more than declarations that the law of eminent domain should be so abridged, or construed, as that th......
  • 148 S.W. 531 (Ark. 1912), St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Fort Smith & Van Buren Railway Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 27, 1912
    ...to incorporate in its judgment substantially the terms and conditions of exhibit "A" to answer and cross bill. 33 Cyc. 256; 110 Mo. 510; 19 Hun 38; 35 Id. 232. 5. No costs of crossing should have been assessed against appellant. 42 Ark. 249; 81 Id. 195; Elliott on Railroads, vol. ......
  • 131 A. 668 (Pa. 1926), 353, Silver v. Hause
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 4, 1926
    ...of articles does not continue responsibility of the lessee for injuries occurring after the expiration of the term (Franke v. St. Louis, 110 Mo. 511, 516, 19 S.W. 938), unless it appears there was a holding over by the tenant, and a continued control of the building exercised. The determini......
  • Free signup to view additional results
10 cases
  • 24 S.W. 478 (Mo. 1893), The Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad Company v. The Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 16, 1893
    ...and third points are not well taken. (3) The court was under no legal obligation to instruct the commissioners. See Railroad v. Railroad, 110 Mo. 510. (4) The appellants were not entitled, under the statutes or constitution, to have the report set aside as a whole, as a matter of right, and......
  • 73 S.W. 485 (Mo. 1903), The State ex rel. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway Co. v. Dearing
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 20, 1903
    ...the point and manner of crossing is given by statute, and its award stands as a contract between the two companies. Railroad v. Railroad, 110 Mo. 510. (7) These exceptions amount to nothing more than declarations that the law of eminent domain should be so abridged, or construed, as that th......
  • 148 S.W. 531 (Ark. 1912), St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Fort Smith & Van Buren Railway Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 27, 1912
    ...to incorporate in its judgment substantially the terms and conditions of exhibit "A" to answer and cross bill. 33 Cyc. 256; 110 Mo. 510; 19 Hun 38; 35 Id. 232. 5. No costs of crossing should have been assessed against appellant. 42 Ark. 249; 81 Id. 195; Elliott on Railroads, vol. ......
  • 131 A. 668 (Pa. 1926), 353, Silver v. Hause
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 4, 1926
    ...of articles does not continue responsibility of the lessee for injuries occurring after the expiration of the term (Franke v. St. Louis, 110 Mo. 511, 516, 19 S.W. 938), unless it appears there was a holding over by the tenant, and a continued control of the building exercised. The determini......
  • Free signup to view additional results