Schneider v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1882 |
| Citation | 75 Mo. 295 |
| Parties | SCHNEIDER v. THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court.--HON. WILLIAM T. WOOD, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Thos. J. Portis and E. A. Andrews for appellant.
This suit was to recover damages for the killing of a horse by defendant's locomotive engine and cars, and the petition alleges that: “Defendant so carelessly and negligently ran and managed its locomotive engine and cars, on its railroad, as to run against and over said horse, thereby killing him.” Defendant objected to any evidence on the part of plaintiff, “because the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” This objection was overruled. That the petition is sufficient in such a case, has been repeatedly held by this court. Meyer v. Atlantic & Pacific R. R. Co., 64 Mo. 542; Goodwin v. R. R. Co., 75 Mo. 73. These cases are distinguishable from Waldhier v. R. R. Co., 71 Mo. 514. That was a suit by an employe against the company to recover damages for personal injuries, and the petition alleged specifically wherein defendant was negligent, and yet plaintiff was permitted to recover for negligence other than that specifically assigned. This was held by this court to be error.
The appellant also complains that the court permitted plaintiff to introduce evidence to show that the horse was killed at a public crossing, and that neither the whistle nor bell of the locomotive was blown or rung, as required by the statute. The appellant contends that as this action is not based upon that section the court erred in admitting evidence of a disregard of its provisions by the defendant's employes. This precise question was passed upon in the case of Goodwin v. R. R. Co., supra, in which we held the evidence admissible.
All concurring, the judgment for plaintiff is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mirrielees v. Wabash Railroad Company
...allegation," and one "which, as a matter of course, the defendant was not prepared to meet." Goodwin v. Railroad, 75 Mo. 73; Schneider v. Railroad, 75 Mo. 295; v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 232; Shaw v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 648; Sullivan v. Railroad, 97 Mo. 113; Robertson v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 119; Hill v......
-
Cushulas v. Schroeder & Tremayne
... ... AND TREMAYNE, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. LouisJanuary 7, 1930 ... Error ... to the Circuit Court of the City of ... Springfield ... Traction Co., 180 Mo.App. 287, 298, 165 S.W. 346; Le ... May v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 105 Mo. 361, 16 S.W ... 1049; Conrad v. De Montcourt, 138 Mo. 311, 39 S.W ... 805; ... [Mack v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 232; Schneider v ... Railroad, 75 Mo. 295.] A general allegation of ... negligence is good unless it is ... ...
-
Guthrie v. City of St. Charles
... ... City of St. Charles, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant No. 36873 Supreme Court of Missouri June 10, 1941 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of St. Charles County; Hon ... Chitty v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 64; ... Waldhier v. Railroad Co., 71 Mo. 514; Schneider ... v. Railroad Co., 75 Mo. 295; McNamee v. Railroad ... Co., 135 Mo. 440. (c) It was error to ... Mfg ... Co., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 417; 45 C. J. 920; ... Miller v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 290 U.S. 227; ... Memphis Consol. Gas & Electric Co. v. Creighton, 183 ... F. 552 ... ...
-
Hilz v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
...v. Railroad, 97 Mo. 113; Neier v. Railroad, 12 Mo.App. 35; Otto v. Railroad, 12 Mo.App. 168; Mack v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 232; Schneider v. Railroad, 75 Mo. 295; Ellet v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 518; Coudy v. Railroad, 85 Mo. 79. (3) The point of appellant, that negligence at common law and negligence......