Fullerton v. Fordyce

Decision Date05 March 1894
Citation25 S.W. 587,121 Mo. 1
PartiesFullerton v. Fordyce et al., Receivers, Appellants
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Scott Circuit Court. -- Hon. H. C. O'Bryan, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Sam H West for appellants.

(1) The court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case the suit being against receivers of the United States court. It is not alleged in the petition or shown at the trial, that the United States court which appointed the receivers defendants herein, had given permission for them to be sued in this case in the state court. The court erred in overruling defendants' plea to the jurisdiction. The defendants objected to the admission of any testimony for the want of jurisdiction, and the court erred in overruling their objection. Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126; Cooley's Const. Lim. [5 Ed.], 10; U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32. (2) The court erred in overruling defendants' plea in abatement, setting up the final discharge of defendants as receivers, which plea was set up in the motion and in the answer. That part of the answer was stricken out and the error in so doing was made the second ground in the motion for new trial. Upon the final discharge of a receiver by the court appointing him, suits pending against him abate. This plea of defendants sets up a good and valid defense, and should not have been stricken out. Beach on Receivers [1 Ed.], sec. 720; Fordyce v. Beecher, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 29. (3) The defendants objected to the introduction of any testimony on the part of the plaintiff because the petition did not state that the defendants had knowledge of the existence of the hole in the platform or that they had such knowledge sufficient length of time to have repaired it or that the platform had been in a dangerous condition long enough to have charged the defendants with knowledge of its defects. The court erred in overruling this objection and in admitting the evidence. Ray on Negligence of Imposed Duties [1 Ed.], sec. 33, p. 94; sec. 34, p. 96; Railroad v. Fairbairn, 48 Ark. 491; Moore v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 481. (4) The court erred in overruling defendants' demurrer and objections to plaintiff's evidence, on the ground that the petition did not allege that the defendants, who were officers of the federal court, had been authorized and empowered by the court appointing them to keep the depot platform at New Madrid in good repair. Beach on Receivers [1 Ed.], secs. 249, 257 and 282; High on Receivers [1 Ed.], secs. 134, 142 and 180. (5) The court erred in refusing and overruling the defendants' application for a physical personal examination of plaintiff by skilled physicians and surgeons. Shepherd v. Railroad, 85 Mo. 629; Sidekum v. Railroad, 93 Mo. 403: Owens v. Railroad, 95 Mo. 177. (6) The court erred in giving its first and third instructions to the jury, which were given on its own motion. These instructions assume, as a matter of law, and affirmatively assert that the hole was unsafe and dangerous, and its existence was negligence, instead of submitting the question for the determination of the jury as an issue of fact. Whether the hole was unsafe or dangerous, and whether there was negligence in not repairing it was a question of fact for the jury to determine. The defendants were entitled to have the jury pass upon the question of fact. Buswell on Personal Injuries [1 Ed.], p. 129, sec. 93; 2 Thompson on Trials [1 Ed.], sec. 2295, and cases cited; Matthews v. Railroad, 26 Mo.App. 89; State v. Wheeler, 79 Mo. 366; Wilkerson v. Thompson, 82 Mo. 328; Bank v. Crandall, 87 Mo. 212; Childrey v. Huntington, 12 S.E. 536; James v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 480. (7) The court erred in its instructions given, as to the measure of damages. Wilburn v. Railroad, 36 Mo.App. 215; Railroad v. Cotes' Adm'r, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases, 265; Railroad v. Sykes' Adm'x, 96 Ill. 162-174; Rolling Mill Co. v. Morrissey, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases, 47; Hawes v. Stock Yards Co., 103 Mo. 60. On the latter part of the first and third instructions, see Willis v. McNeil, 57 Texas, 478. (8) The court erred in its instructions to the jury in this, that the jury were not told the duty, if any, the defendants owed the plaintiff and did not tell the jury the degree of care required by law of defendants in reference to keeping the station platform in repair. By the instructions, the jury were in effect told that if the plaintiff fell into a hole in the platform, the defendants were liable to him in damages. Ray on Negligence of Imposed Duties [1 Ed.], sec. 33, p. 94; sec. 34, p. 96. (9) The court erred in refusing instructions asked by the defendants. Ray on Negligence of Imposed Duties [1 Ed.], sec 33, p. 94; sec. 34, p. 96; City v. Dolan, 34 Ill.App. 199; 2 Thompson on Trials [1 Ed.], sec. 2295. (10) The verdict is excessive and should have been set aside on defendants' motion. 2 Thompson on Trials [1 Ed.], secs. 2299, 2300; Britton v. Railroad, 51 N.W. 276; Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 28; Sawyer v. Railroad, 37 Mo. 240; Honeycutt v. Railroad, 40 Mo.App. 674; Furnish v. Railroad, 102 Mo. 438; Hanlon v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 381; Railroad v. Hall, 78 Texas, 657. (11) The court erred in admitting improper testimony against the objections of the defendants. (12) The court erred in its instructions given to the jury. They exacted perfection on the part of the defendant in relation to the condition of the platform. They, in effect, told the jury that it was the duty of the defendant to keep the platform in perfect condition. The instructions given by the court were conflicting.

Wilson Cramer for respondent.

(1) The law imposes on railroad corporations as common carriers the duty of keeping the approaches and platforms of their stations in a safe condition. In the case of Railroad v. Lucas, the supreme court of Indiana says (21 N.E. 970): "A carrier of passengers is under a duty to provide and maintain safe alighting places, and for a breach of this duty must respond in damages to a passenger who, without contributory fault, on his part, is injured by a negligent failure to perform his duty." * * * Again: "After the passenger has left the cars and stations of a railway carrier, its duty as a carrier ceases, but not until then." Lucas v. Pennsylvania Co., 21 N.E. 972; Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 23 N.E. 973; Railroad v. Stansberry, 32 N.E. 218; Wallace v. Railroad, 18 A. 818; Railroad v. Trautwein, 19 A. (N. J.) 178; Reed v. Railroad, 4 S.E. (Va.) 587; Watson v. Land Co., 8 S. Rep. (Ala.) 770; Railroad v. Watson, 10 S. Rep. (Ala.) 228; Collins v. Railroad, 45 N.W. 178; Green v. Railroad, 36 F. 66; Moore v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 481; 2 Wood's Railway Law, p. 1163, sec. 310; Shearman & Redfield on Neg. [3 Ed.], secs. 277, 447. (2) Railroad companies are required to furnish lights at their stations during the arrival and departure of trains at night. Sargent v. Railroad, 114 Mo. 349; Fordyce v. Merrill, 5 S.W. (Ark.) 329; Bueneman v. Railroad, 20 N.W. (Minn.); Railroad v. Lucas, 21 N.E. 968. (3) Receivers operating a railroad are common carriers and subject to the same duties and liabilities as the railroad corporation, of whose property they have control. 3 Wood's Railway Law, p. 1666, sec. 482; High on Rec., secs. 395, 396; Meara's Adm'r v. Holbrook, 5 Am. Rep. 633; Winbourn's Case, 30 F. 167 (Mo.) ; Pope's Case, 30 F. 169; Eddy v. Lafayette, 49 F. 807; McNulta v. Lochridge, 12 U. S. S.Ct. 11; Railroad v. Cox, 12 U. S. S.Ct. 905. (4) This suit was brought in 1890, and it was unnecessary for plaintiff to obtain leave to sue the receivers. Since the passage of the act of congress of March 3, 1887 (24 U. S. Stat. 554), and the amendatory act of August 13, 1888 (25 U. S. Stat. 436), receivers appointed by the courts of the United States may be sued without first obtaining leave. Trust Co. v. Railroad, 40 F. 426; Jones v. The St. Nicholas, 48 F. 671; Eddy v. Lafayette, 49 F. 807; Dillingham v. Anthony, 11 S.W. 139; Fordyce v. Withers, 20 S.W. 766; McNulta v. Lochridge, 12 U. S. S.Ct. 11; Railroad v. Cox, 12 U. S. S.Ct. 905. (5) The hole in the platform was there from four days to two weeks, according to the evidence of defendants' witnesses, and from three weeks to two months, according to plaintiff's witnesses, and it is shown that the station agent, A. X. Donahue, who was also conductor of the train, was present when the hole was made. Notice to the agent was notice to the principal. (6) The court properly overruled defendant's application for an order to compel plaintiff to submit to personal examination. Defendants in actions for personal injuries have no absolute right to an order compelling plaintiff to submit to an examination, but it is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court. Shepard v. Railroad, 85 Mo. 629; Sidekum v. Railroad, 93 Mo. 400; Owens v. Railroad, 95 Mo. 169. (7) Defendants' first instruction was properly refused. It is to the effect that an action for personal injuries can not be maintained against receivers in their official capacity. (8) The second, third and fourth instructions asked by defendants were properly refused. They were based upon the supposed discharge of the receivers, while defendants did not introduce, nor even offer, evidence to show such discharge, nor could it have been received under the issues. (9) The fifth and sixth instructions asked by defendants have no evidence for their support; it was, therefore, not error to refuse them. (10) The instructions given by the court on its own motion presented the case in all of its phases fairly to the jury, and defendants' objections to them are not well taken.

Macfarlane J. Barclay, J., is absent.

OPINION

Macfarlane, J.

This is a suit prosecuted by plaintiff against the receivers of the St. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway Company, appointed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT