Christy v. Hughes

Decision Date10 January 1887
Citation24 Mo.App. 275
PartiesA. D. CHRISTY, Appellant, v. PERRY B. HUGHES, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

APPEAL from Putnam Circuit Court, HON. ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.

Affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

G. W. BARNETT, for the appellant.

I. The court erred in giving the instruction in the nature of a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, as there was evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the

defendant; and evidence tending to prove the allegations of the petition, and the damages are not too remote. Morgan v. Cox, 22 Mo. 374; Brown v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 461; Walsh v. Transportation Co., 52 Mo. 434; Meyers v. Railroad, 59 Mo. 223; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. 346.

II. The court should never withdraw the case from the jury when the plaintiff offers any evidence tending to prove the issues on his part. Wells v. Lea, 20 Mo. App. 352.

No brief for the respondent.

PHILIPS, P. J.

This action was instituted in a justice's court. The statement is as follows:

Plaintiff states that on the _____ day of February, 1883, he was the owner of and in possession of a certain Berkshire sow of the value of twenty-five dollars; also a certain spotted sow shote of the value of five dollars, and that said hogs were running at large upon the commons, and that said hogs stayed at and near plaintiff's premises and slept under the building known as the Masonic hall, in Unionville, Missouri, said hall being then open to the commons, and stock running at large having access thereto, and afterwards, to-wit: On or about the _____ day of February, 1883, the defendant entered into the lower story of said hall and took possession of the same and did then and there deposit grass seed in said building until the floor of said building was sprung and about to give away. And the defendant was warned of said fact and notified to remove the immense weight; but the defendant, still persisting in his course in placing still more weight upon said floor, thereby wilfully, carelessly and negligently broke down said lower floor of said hall, and in so doing did kill plaintiff's hogs aforesaid to his, the plaintiff's, damage in the sum of thirty dollars, for which he asks judgment.”

On the trial, on appeal in the circuit court, the plaintiff testified as follows:

“I was the owner of the two hogs in controversy. Hogs were allowed to run at large on the commons at the time the defendant was cleaning up seeds, and had a large amount of seed stored in the lower room of the Masonic hall, near where I live; my hogs were running at large and the hall was not fenced. The east and south side of the hall were open underneath, and was from two to three feet from the ground on the south side where it was open, and a great many hogs would frequent the place and lie under the hall. I knew my hogs slept under the hall, but I did not know the lower floor was weak. I thought it was all right. I had two hogs killed by the falling of the lower floor, on account of the immense weight that had been placed there by the defendant. The two hogs were worth about twenty-nine or thirty dollars; one of them was a fine Berkshire sow. She was worth at least twenty-five dollars.”

The only other evidence was as to the value of the hogs, and that the defendant was notified of the fact that he was overweighting the floor.

To this evidence the court sustained a demurrer, and directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed.

I. In the action for consequential damages resulting from the negligence of the defendant, it devolves on the plaintiff to show that there was such connection between the negligent act and the injury as to bring it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Boyle v. Neisner Bros., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 5, 1935
    ...31 S.W. (2d) 974; Holt v. S.W.M.E. Ry. Co., 84 Mo. App. 443; Majors v. Ozark Power & Water Co., 205 Mo. App. 337, 222 S.W. 501; Christy v. Hughes, 24 Mo. App. 275; Rice v. White (Mo. Sup.), 239 S.W. 149; Near v. St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co., 261 Mo. 80, 168 S.W. 1186; Milliken v. Thyson, 202 Mo. 6......
  • Boyle v. Neisner Bros.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 5, 1935
    ...31 S.W.2d 974; Holt v. S.W. M. E. Ry. Co., 84 Mo.App. 443; Majors v. Ozark Power & Water Co., 205 Mo.App. 337, 222 S.W. 501; Christy v. Hughes, 24 Mo.App. 275; Rice v. White (Mo. Sup.), 239 S.W. 149; Near St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 261 Mo. 80, 168 S.W. 1186; Milliken v. Thyson, 202 Mo. 637, 10......
  • Johnson v. Ambursen Hydraulic Constructing Company
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 1915
    ......Coughlin, 176. Mo.App. 275, 161 S.W. 888, approved the following rule. deduced from the opinion in the case of Christy v. Hughes, 24 Mo.App. 275: "In the action for. consequential damages resulting from the negligence . of the defendant, it devolves on the ......
  • McCray v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 3, 1928
    ...Mo. 623; Wilt v. Coughlin, 176 Mo.App. 275; Chandler v. Gas Co., 174 Mo. 321; Zasemowich v. American Mfg. Co., 213 S.W. 799; Christy v. Hughes, 24 Mo.App. 275; DeMoss v. C. Rys. Co., 296 Mo. 526; Wilson v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 129 Mo.App. 658; Foley v. McMahon, 114 Mo.App. 442. The problem ......
  • 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