Briggs v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1884
• Citation: 82 Mo. 37
• Parties: BRIGGS v. THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

82 Mo. 37

BRIGGS

v.THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1884.

Appeal from Bates Circuit Court.--HON. J. B. GANTT, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Thomas J. Portis for appellant.

The complaint did not meet the statutory requirement in failing to contain a demand for relief. R. S., § 3511. It is required that each cause of action must be separately stated, with the relief sought for each cause in such manner that they may be intelligibly distinguished. R. S., § 3512; Childs v. State Bank, 17 Mo. 213; Mooney v. Kennett, 19 Mo. 551; Simille v. Harrison, 30 Mo. 228; McCoy v. Yager, 34 Mo. 134. A complaint based on section 809 must also meet the requirements of sections 3511 and 3512. Barnett v. Railroad Co., 68 Mo. 56; Gorman v. Railroad Co., 26 Mo. 450; Parish v. Railroad Co., 63 Mo. 284. The statutory requirements must be complied with whether the action be commenced in a court of record or before a justice of the peace. The complaint did not do that in this case, and the court erred in receiving testimony to support its averments over defendant's objections. Bates v. Railroad Co., 74 Mo. 60; Schulte v. Railroad Co., 76 Mo. 324.

F. P. Wright and C. A. Clark for respondent.

The statement is sufficient. Terry v. Railroad Co., 77 Mo. 254; Chubbuck v. Railroad Co., 77 Mo. 591.

HENRY, J.

Plaintiff commenced this suit before a justice of the peace, under section 809 of the Revised Statutes, to recover double damages for the killing and injuring of a cow and steer belonging to him by defendant's train of cars. The following is the statement filed with the justice:

The plaintiff states that the defendant is a railroad corporation, running and operating a line of railroad lying in and running through the township of Osage, in Bates county, Missouri, and other townships. That on or about the 23d day of July, 1881, plaintiff's cow went on the track of said railroad within the said township of Osage, where said road runs adjoining inclosed fields and through uninclosed prairie lands, and where no fences were erected on the sides of the railroad, where said road was entirely uninclosed. That while said cow was on the track of defendant's railroad, defendant struck and injured said cow with its locomotive and cars, so as to render her worthless. The said cow was, at the time she was killed by defendant, worth the sum of $40.

Plaintiff further states that on or about the 2d day of July, 1881, he was the owner of a steer of the value of $25, that on or about said day said steer went upon the track of defendant's railroad in said township and where said road lies and runs through uninclosed prairie lands and where defendant had wholly neglected to fence its railroad, at a point about one mile north of Rich Hill depot on said road. That said steer went upon said railroad track by reason of the same being unfenced. That while said steer was upon said railroad as aforesaid he was struck by defendant with its locomotive and cars and injured so as to render him worthless, to plaintiff's damage of $25.

Plaintiff says that by the injuring of said cow and steer he is damaged in the total sum of $65, wherefore he asks judgment against the defendant for double the amount of said damages, to-wit: $130, together with costs of suit.

Defendant moved to dismiss, on the ground that the statement alleged no facts which showed it to be the duty of defendant to fence its road at the point where the cattle got on the track, and again,...