35 Mo. 352 (Mo. 1864), Meyer v. North Mo. Co.

Citation:35 Mo. 352
Opinion Judge:DRYDEN, Judge
Attorney:N. Holmes, for appellant. J. G. Woerner, for respondent.
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 352

35 Mo. 352 (Mo. 1864)

JOHN MEYER, Respondent,



Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1864

Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.

N. Holmes, for appellant.

I. Admitting that the scope and intent of the statute concerning " Damages" (R. C. 1855, p. 649, § 5) are broad enough to change the general rule of law, and include cities with their streets and squares, as well as country districts with their " enclosed fields" and " public roads," it is contended that this case comes within the exception of " any public highway" crossing, both in respect of the legal acceptation of the words, and in accordance with the general intent and policy of the act. (3 Com. Dig. 27; 2 Black. 35 & n. 28.) A highway may be created by the owner in fee dedicating it to public use. (11 East. 375 & n.) A public street is, to all intents and purposes, a public highway. (3 Crui. Dig., Greenl., 85.) A plat of a city addition duly acknowledged and recorded, is a dedication sufficient to constitute a street. (R. C. 1855, p. 1536, § 8; City of Hannibal v. Draper, 15 Mo. 634.) The provisions of the statutes with regard to fences, cattle-guards, sign-boards, signals, and crossings, make a distinction between city and country. R. C. 1855, p. 436: § 47, as to signals; § 48, sign-boards on crossings are not required in cities, unless the city officers demand them; Id. § 52, requiring " fences" where the road passes through " enclosed fields" and " cattle-guards" at the " road crossings," is by its terms confined to the country, and does not extend to cities, street crossings, and town squares--p. 437. No one of the special charter acts of this company expressly requires them to fence their road anywhere, but by § 11 of the act of 3d March, 1851, they are expressly authorized to build their road " along or across any street of any town or city."

Statutes requiring cattle-guards at " road crossings," do not extend to street crossings. ( Vanderkar v. Raenslaer & Sar. R., 13 Barb. 390.) So the statute (R. C. 1855, p. 437, § 52) requiring fences through " enclosed fields" and cattle-guards at " road crossings," does not extend to streets and squares in cities. The language of the act concerning " Damages," (§ 5) would seem to have reference to the country rather than the city. Streets and squares are not especially named. The spirit and purview of the act...

To continue reading