76 Mo. 614 (Mo. 1882), Field v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.

Citation:76 Mo. 614
Opinion Judge:HENRY, J.
Party Name:FIELD v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
Attorney:M. A. Low for appellant. J. E. & J. F. Merryman for respondent.
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 614

76 Mo. 614 (Mo. 1882)

FIELD

v.

THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1882

Appeal from Platte Circuit Court. --HON. GEO. W. DUNN, Judge.

REVERSED.

M. A. Low for appellant.

When the plaintiff's right is founded upon an obligation of law, or an obligation on the part of the defendant to observe some particular duty, the declaration must state concisely the circumstances which give rise to the defendant's particular duty or liability. Moak's Van Santvoord's Plead., (3 Ed.) 219; 1 Estee's Plead., (1 Ed.) 204; City of Buffalo v. Holloway, 7 N.Y. 493; Leas v. White, 15 Iowa 187; Nickerson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 46 Conn. 24; s. c., 33 Am. Rep. 755. And the evidence should be confined to the facts. Waldhier v. R. R. Co., 71 Mo. 514; Luckie v. R. R. Co., 67 Mo. 245; Edens v. R. R. Co., 72 Mo. 212; Price v. R. R. Co., 72 Mo. 414; Bullene v. Smith, 73 Mo. 151, 162; Harrison v. R. R. Co., 74 Mo. 369; Marquette, etc., R. R. Co. v. Marcott, 41 Mich. 433; C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 68 Ill. 576; Manuel v. R. R. Co., 56 Iowa 655; Munkers v. R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 339. The railroad company had a right to obstruct the flow of surface water, and cannot be made liable in this action. Imler v. Springfield, 55 Mo. 119; McCormick v. R. R. Co., 57 Mo. 433; 70 Mo. 359; Munkers v. R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 334; Laumir v. Francis, 23 Mo. 181; Barkley v. Wilcox, 86 N.Y. 140; s. c., 40 Am. Rep. 519; Gibbs v. Williams, 25 Kas. 214; s. c., 37 Am. Rep. 241.

J. E. & J. F. Merryman for respondent.

HENRY, J.

This is a suit to recover damages for the destruction of a growing crop of corn on plaintiff's land, and, after relating plaintiff's ownership of the land, and that defendant had for years past been using a strip of said land for a right of way and running its train of cars over it, the cause of action is thus stated: " That defendant failed to keep its road in such condition as to prevent injury to plaintiff; but negligently and carelessly failed to make, and keep open, proper ditches for the purpose of leading the water off of plaintiff's land; and in consequence of the careless and negligent conduct of defendant, as aforesaid, the water was dammed up, and caused to flow back, and over the land of plaintiff, and destroy his growing crop, to his damage," etc. The defendant objected to the introduction of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP