Brown v. Louisiana & M. R. R. Co.

Citation256 Mo. 522,165 S.W. 1060
Decision Date03 March 1914
Docket NumberNo. 16,449.,16,449.
PartiesBROWN v. LOUISIANA & M. R. R. CO. et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; Jas. D. Barnett, Judge.

Action by Wilfred W. Brown against the Louisiana & Missouri River Railroad Company and the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Plaintiff, a passenger on defendant's railroad, sued to recover for injuries received in a derailment of its train February 6, 1909, which was caused by the breaking of a steel rail.

The action was brought against two defendants, one as lessor and the other as sublessee of the railroad. After an ineffectual effort to remove the cause to the federal court, the sublessee, the Chicago & Alton Railway Company, answered, alleging a legal removal of the case and a general denial and an improper joinder of its codefendant. The local defendant answered separately, denying jurisdiction, and averring under the statute sued on, which made a lessor railroad liable, after the lease of its property for the acts and the liabilities of the lessee (R. S. 1899, § 1060, now R. S. 1909, § 3078), that its rights and privileges under prior charter from the state were impaired, contrary to the Constitution. On the trial, the plaintiff had judgment for $5,000. Defendant duly appealed.

Scarritt, Scarritt, Jones & Miller, of Kansas City, for appellants. Fauntleroy, Cullen & Hay and Barclay & Orthwein, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

BOND, J. (after stating the facts as above).

There is no claim that the judgment in this case is disproportioned to the injuries of plaintiff. The only errors assigned by appellant are those arising upon the defenses set up in the separate answers: First, that the lessor, Louisiana & Missouri River Railway Company, is not responsible for the act of its lessee, Chicago & Alton Railway Company; second, that the filing of the petition for the removal to the federal court ousted the trial court of jurisdiction; third, that plaintiff has no case on the merits.

As to the first of these contentions, the argument of appellant is that the present action, being based on a section of the statute (R. S. 1909, § 3078) which originated in an act of the Legislature approved March 24, 1870 (Session Acts, p. 89), is not maintainable, because the same Legislature at a prior day had enacted an amendment of the charter of defendant, whereby it was empowered to lease its property free from any responsibility for the torts or other acts of the lessee (Session Acts 1870, p. 93), and to permit the present suit under the later act, which provided that all corporations of this state, leasing their property to a corporation of another state, "shall remain liable as if it operated the road itself," would be to sanction the legislative impairment of the contract between the state and the local defendant, expressed in the aforesaid amendment of its charter.

The answer to the position is that, if amendment of the charter of the local defendant was constitutionally enacted and could be construed to grant said defendant the right to lease its property and exempt itself from the torts of the lessee, yet the later act, prescribing that no such leases should relieve the lessor from responsibility, was a valid law in strict accord with the constitutional powers of the Legislature at that time, as will be shown. That said act, now section 3078 of the revision of 1909, is constitutional has been adjudged against this particular defendant, when assailed by a different objection. Dean v. Railway, 199 Mo. 389, 97 S. W. 910; Markey v. Railway, 185 Mo. 348, 84 S. W. 61. That said act is not subject to the present objection will appear by the fact that since 1845, and continuously until the adoption of the Constitution of 1865, the Legislature reserved express power to itself...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Curry v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1927
    ... ... by plaintiff is always a question for the jury. Simpson ... v. Railroad, 192 S.W. 739; Brown v. Railroad, ... 256 Mo. 522, 535-6; Anderson v. Railroad, 290 Mo. 1, ... 8; Gibson v. Wells, 258 S.W. 1; Cecil v ... Wells, 259 S.W. 844; ... cited Gibson v. Wells (Mo. App.), 258 S.W. 1; ... Carlson v. Wells (Mo. Sup.), 276 S.W. 26, l. c. 29; ... Brown v. Louisiana & M. R. R. Co., 165 S.W. 1060, ... 256 Mo. 522, l. c. 535; Anderson v. Kansas City R ... Co., 290 Mo. 1, 233 S.W. 203; Cecil v. Wells, ... 214 ... ...
  • Shaffer ex rel. Shaffer v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, Chicago
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 15, 1923
    ... ... Island. Markey v. Railroad, 185 Mo. 363; Dean v ... Railroad, 199 Mo. 390; R. S. 1919, sec. 9879; Brown ... v. Railroad, 256 Mo. 532; Moorshead v. United Rys ... Co., 203 Mo. 158; McCoy v. Ry. Co., 36 Mo.App ... 452; Brown v. Ry. Co., 27 ... ...
  • Murrell v. Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 5, 1919
    ... ... the appellate courts upheld. This attack has long since been ... rendered nondebatable. Brown v. Railroad, 256 Mo ... 532; State v. Saline County Court, 51 Mo. 350; ... State v. Callaway County Court, 51 Mo. 395; ... Fleming v ... ...
  • Pointer v. Mountain Railway Construction Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1916
    ... ... C. L., sec. 713, ... p. 74; 29 Cyc. 591 and cases cited; Sweeney v ... Erving, 228 U.S. 233, 57 L.Ed. 815, 33 S.Ct. 416; ... Brown v. Railway, 256 Mo. 522; Dougherty v ... Railway, 81 Mo. 325; Gallagher v. Edison ... Illuminating Co., 72 Mo.App. 576; O'Callaghan v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT