Cnty. Court of St. Louis Cnty. ex rel. Jenks v. Fassett

• Decision Date: 31 October 1877
• Parties: THE COUNTY COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY EX REL. JENKS, APPELLANT v. FASSETT ET AL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

65 Mo. 418

THE COUNTY COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY EX REL. JENKS, APPELLANT

v.FASSETT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1877.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

The case was tried at special term before HON. JAMES K. KNIGHT, one of the judges.

The statute under which the suit is brought is as follows:

SEC. 1. The Governor shall appoint an inspector * * * * * whose duty shall be to examine and test the quality of all coal or petroleum oils; * * * that he shall be requested by any manufacturer, &c., to examine; and, if upon such testing or examination, the oils or fluids so tested, shall meet the requirements hereinafter specified, he shall fix his brand and device ““approved,” with date upon the package, &c., containing the same, and it shall be lawful for any manufacturer or dealer to sell the same as an illuminator. But if the oil, so tested, shall not meet the requirements, he shall mark upon each package, &c., “rejected for illuminating purposes,” under his name; and it shall be unlawful for the owner to sell for illuminating purposes, &c. Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 435.

Krum & Patrick for appellant.

The injury is not too remote to entitle the relator to recover. The office of inspector was created but for one object, viz: to surround the lives and property of the people of this community with as many safeguards as the law could contrive against the sale of dangerous burning oils. It was designed to prevent the sale of oil below a certain standard. If the officer, when called upon to inspect oil, should brand it “approved,” when he should have branded it “rejected,” he would violate an express statutory duty; and it is none the less a violation of his duty if there is no oil at all in the barrels when he affixes his brand “approved.” In the present case, by defendant's own act, a deliberate and willful one, this engine of calamity and death, was sold to the relator with all his symbols of office upon it, to express to the relator that he might safely buy and use it. Can it be said that when his wife lost her life by the explosion of that oil, her death was not a consequence of his act and neglect, or the connection between his act and neglect, and her death is not easily made? The defendant put the power of death in motion, and the dealer was his innocent agent in the work of destruction, selling in reliance upon the brand “approved.” It was the false representation of the brand that led to the injury. Defendant is responsible for the consequences. Wharton on Negligence, § 145; Burrows v. March Gas Co., L. R. 5 Exch. 67; S. C. L. R. 7 Exch. 96. The relator is a party aggrieved within the meaning of the statute. McCarthy v. Guild, 12 Met. 291; and may maintain an action for the fatal injury to his wife. Wag. Stat. 147, § 3.

SHERWOOD, C. J.

Action on the official bond of Alfred K. Fassett, inspector of coal and petroleum oils for the city of St. Louis, brought to the use of Cline Jenks, whose wife was killed by a lamp explosion, which explosion was brought about and caused by Fassett's neglect of and dereliction from official duty, in that he failed, neglected, &c., to perform the...