Carson v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 17901.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | Graves |
| Citation | 184 S.W. 1039 |
| Parties | CARSON v. MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. |
| Docket Number | No. 17901.,17901. |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1916 |
v.
MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cooper County; J. G. Slate, Judge.
Action by Hinton V. Carson against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Case transferred to the Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff sues in two counts to recover damages to his crops in the years 1910 and 1912, alleged to have been occasioned by overflow water upon his farm, which it is charged was caused to remain upon his farm in Howard county, because defendant failed to construct ditches along its railroad bed to the north of plaintiff's farm.
The railroad track and right of way is to the north of plaintiff's farm, and the farm abuts on said right of way. The railroad runs east and west, or practically so, at the point where the farm abuts the right of way. The negligence charged is that stated in the first count of the petition:
"That the construction of defendant's said railroad along and adjacent to plaintiff's said land obstructed the drainage of water therefrom and prevented it from passing off from said land through its natural outlets, and that ditches along the side of said roadbed connected with drains and water courses then existing were rendered necessary by the construction of said railroad so as to afford sufficient outlet to drain and carry off the water that accumulated on plaintiff's land alongside railroad, and was confined thereon by reason of the construction of said roadbed, and to afford an outlet for said water into such drains and water courses, with which ditches along the side of said railroad could and should have been connected. That at all the times hereinafter mentioned, there was east of plaintiff's land a water course known as "Salt creek"; that said Salt creek emptied into the Missouri river; that a ditch on each side of defendant's railroad near plaintiff's land could and should have been constructed connecting with Salt creek; and that such ditches were rendered necessary by the construction of said railroad. That defendant wholly failed and neglected to cause to be constructed and maintained ditches along the sides of its said railroad near the plaintiff's said land to connect with drains and water courses then existing as aforesaid so as to afford a sufficient outlet to drain and carry off the surface and overflow water that accumulated on plaintiff's said land south of defendant's said railroad. That, upon the contrary, the defendant, by its roadbed, impeded the flow of the water and caused it to be gathered together in great quantities on plaintiff's land on the south side of said railroad, and wholly neglected and failed to provide ditches upon the sides of its railroad to carry the same off to the natural water courses. That in consequence of defendant's failure to construct such ditches along the sides of said railroad as required by the statutes in such cases, plaintiff's said land on or about the 13th of June, 1912, was overflowed, and the water—by reason of the defendant's embankment and its roadbed—was retained upon plaintiff's said land for a long space of time, to wit, forty-five (45) days, and in consequence thereof the corn growing upon twenty-eight (28) acres of said land of the value of five hundred and four dollars ($504) was thereby totally destroyed, and the corn upon another twenty (20) acre tract upon plaintiff's land was damaged to the extent of two hundred forty dollars ($240.00), and the wheat growing upon thirty (30) acres of land was damaged to the extent of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00); all of said crops being then and there the property of this plaintiff and the damage and injury to the same was caused by defendant's neglect and failure to construct
[184 S.W. 1040]
ditches upon the sides of its said railroad as aforesaid.
"Wherefore plaintiff says that he has sustained damages in the sum of one thousand ninety-four dollars ($1,094.00), and for which amount, with costs, he asks judgment."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Clayton v. Nemours, 39003
...32 S.W.2d 583; St. Louis Gunning Adv. Co. v. St. Louis, 235 Mo. 99; Clutter v. Blankenship, 144 S.W.2d 119; Carson v. M., K. & T.R. Co., 184 S.W. 1039. Bohling, C. Westhues and Barrett, CC., concur. OPINION BOHLING [182 S.W.2d 58] [353 Mo. 64] We answer the question here presented in the af......
-
Bealmer v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company of Hartford
...substance to the constitutional question before it possesses the vitality to force jurisdiction here." [Carson [220 S.W. 958] v. Ry. Co., 184 S.W. 1039, 1041; State ex rel. v. Woodman, 193 S.W. 570.] The rule is the same in the United States Supreme Court. "It is settled that not every mere......
-
Wilson & Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 23229.
...at least be some substance in the allegation of the presence of a federal question to authorize the transfer. Carson v. R. R. (Mo. Sup.) 184 S. W. 1039; Balmer v. Hartford Fire Ins. Oh., 281 Mo. 498, 220 S. W. 954. That there must be a real substantive question on which the case may be made......
-
City of Clayton v. Nemours, 39003.
...(2d) 583; St. Louis Gunning Adv. Co. v. St. Louis, 235 Mo. 99; Clutter v. Blankenship, 144 S.W. (2d) 119; Carson v. M., K. & T.R. Co., 184 S.W. 1039. BOHLING, We answer the question here presented in the affirmative; that is: A municipality may prohibit, within reasonable limits, the parkin......