Clarkson v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co.

Citation84 Mo. 583
PartiesCLARKSON v. THE WABASH, ST. LOUIS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
Decision Date31 October 1884
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court.--HON. ELIJAH ROBINSON, Judge.

REVERSED.

George S. Grover for appellant.

As a statement of a statutory cause of action, the complaint is insufficient. Swearingen v. R. R., 64 Mo. 73; Edwards v. R. R., 66 Mo. 567; Wallace v. R. R., 74 Mo. 594; Wymore v. R. R., 79 Mo. 247; Johnson v. R. R., 76 Mo. 554; Nance v. R. R., 79 Mo. 196. (2) The court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to the evidence. (3) The court also erred in giving erroneous instructions and in refusing instructions which properly declared the law. Buel v. Transfer Co., 45 Mo. 562; Otto v. Bent, 48 Mo. 23; Price v. R. R., 77 Mo. 508.

Hughlett, Hughes & Johnson for respondent.

The complaint is a good statement of a cause of action under the fifth section of the damage act. Scott v. R. R., 75 Mo. 136; Iba v. R. R., 45 Mo. 470; Calvert v. R. R., 38 Mo. 467; Powell v. R. R., 35 Mo. 457; Brown v. R. R., 33 Mo. 309.

EWING, C.

This action was instituted on the twenty-ninth day of January, 1882, before a justice of the peace in Montgomery county, Missouri, to recover the sum of fifty dollars, for a horse alleged to have been killed by one of defendant's trains on the twenty-fifth day of October, 1881, upon the following statement:

Plaintiff for his cause of action states that on or about the twenty-fifth day of October, 1881, defendant was, and is now, a corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Missouri. That defendant, as such corporation, was, on the twenty-fifth day of October, 1881, the owner and occupier of a certain railroad known as the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company, running through Montgomery county, Missouri, and of certain cars and locomotives running thereon. The plaintiff was then the owner of one horse, of the value of fifty dollars, which horse, without any fault of plaintiff, strayed upon the track of said railroad, at a point in Upper Loutre township, Montgomery county, Missouri, where the same was not inclosed by a lawful fence, and where the same is not crossed by any public highway, and in consequence thereof was negligently struck by defendant's engine, cars, and train, and killed, to plaintiff's damage of fifty dollars. Wherefore, plaintiff says that by reason of the premises he is damaged fifty dollars, for which he asks judgment.

There was a trial before the justice and judgment for plaintiff. The case was appealed to the circuit court where there was again judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant brings the case here by appeal.

I. The first question presented is as to the sufficiency of the statement. It is an attempt to state a cause of action, as is admitted by respondent in his brief, under the fifth section of the damage act, now section 2124, Revised Statutes, 1879. In Tiarks v. St. L. & I. M. Ry. Co., 58 Mo. 45, this court said: “The fifth section of the damage act was designed to furnish an inducement for the roads to fence their track, where it was not deemed absolutely necessary to compel them to do so. By that section, if the road is not fenced, and animals are killed at a place where the law does not require fences to be erected, the law raises the inference of negligence, and the corporation will be liable.” This section, 2124, does not require railroads to fence their track anywhere. Edwards v. H. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 66 Mo. 567. And hence they are not liable for injury to stock under that section, unless the injury occurred at a place where there was not a lawful fence in fact; and also at a place where the company might or could fence, if it is so desired, and also at a place other than the crossing of a public highway. For example: A railway is not permitted to fence its track at a public crossing; nor is it required or permitted to fence where it runs through incorporated towns laid off into streets and thoroughfares; nor to fence up their stations. Lloyd v.P. R. R. Co., 49 Mo. 199;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Radcliffe v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1886
    ...at a place where the railroad track "may have been inclosed by a lawful fence." This failure is fatal. R. S., sec. 2124; Clarkson v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 583; Swearengen v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 73; Edwards Railroad, 66 Mo. 567; Nance v. Railroad, 78 Mo. 196; Wyman v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 247; Tiarks v.......
  • McIntosh v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • May 23, 1887
    ...v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 75; Robertson v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 412; Wallace v. Railroad, 74 Mo. 594; Russell v. Railroad, 83 Mo. 507; Clarkson v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 583; Morris v. Railroad, 58 Mo. 78. No case can found in the books, where an action under the old forty-third section was sustained for i......
  • Gregory v. Wabash
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 25, 1886
    ...the averments necessary in an action under section 2124 of the statute. Burton v. R. R., 30 Mo. 375; Quick v. R. R., 31 Mo. 400; Clarkson v. R. R., 84 Mo. 583. It was defective under section 809, Revised Statutes, in failing to allege that the stock was killed in consequence of the failure ......
  • Gregory v. The Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • January 25, 1886
    ...the averments necessary in an action under section 2124 of the statute. Burton v. R. R., 30 Mo. 375; Quick v. R. R., 31 Mo. 400; Clarkson v. R. R., 84 Mo. 583. It was defective under section 809, Revised Statutes, in failing to allege that the stock was killed in consequence of the failure ......
  • 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