Cohn v. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1904 |
| Citation | 81 S.W. 846,182 Mo. 577 |
| Parties | COHN, by Next Friend v. METROPOLITAN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. Wm. B. Teasdale, Judge.
Affirmed.
John H Lucas for appellant.
(1) The petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (a) It does not show legal capacity on the part of the plaintiff to maintain this action. Caster v Chase, 160 Mo. 424; Porter v. Railroad, 60 Mo 160; Jones v. Steele, 36 Mo. 326; Higgins v. Railroad, 36 Mo. 431. (b) It does not show that the alleged failure to ring the bell, nor excessive speed, was the proximate cause of the injury. Molyneux v. Railroad, 81 Mo.App. 28; Hanlon v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 387. (c) It does not show that plaintiff was in a position of peril, and that the servants of defendant saw, or might have seen, him in time to have stopped the car and avoided the injury. Dezell v. Casualty Co., 75 S.W. 1103; Koenig v. Depot Co., 73 S.W. 644. (2) There was no evidence on which to submit any issue to the jury. Aldrich v. Railroad, 74 S.W. 141; Cojan v. Railroad, 73 S.W. 738; Payne v. Railroad, 136 Mo. 585; Nellis, Street Railway, pp. 367-8-9-77-8; Tanner v. Railroad, 161 Mo. 497; Maxey v. Railroad, 113 Mo. 11; Boyd v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 379; Kelsey v. Railroad, 129 Mo. 362; Hook v. Railroad, 162 Mo. 569; Daviess v. Railroad, 159 Mo. 1; Watson v. Railroad, 133 Mo. 246; Moore v. Railroad, 75 S.W. 672; Campbell v. Railroad, 75 S.W. 92; Thompson v. Railroad, 140 Mo. 125; Vogg v. Railroad, 138 Mo. 172; Murray v. Railroad, 75 S.W. 611; Zumault v. Railroad, 74 S.W. 1015.
Robert E. Rooney for respondent.
The petition does state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (a) It does show legal capacity on the part of the plaintiff to maintain this action. Randolph v. Railroad, 18 Mo.App. 609; Rogers v. Marsh, 73 Mo. 70; Taylor v. Pullen, 152 Mo. 440. (b) It does show that the failure to ring the bell and excessive speed were the proximate causes of the injury. Kenney v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 272; Hanlon v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 381; Gratiot v. Railroad, 116 Mo. 450; Brewitt v. Railroad, 134 Mo. 615; Lowry v. Railroad, 40 Mo.App. 554; Kellery v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 67; Schleith v. Railroad, 96 Mo. 509; Backenstoe v. Railroad, 23 Mo.App. 148. The rule applies to cable railways. Weber v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 194. (c) It does show that plaintiff was in a position of peril and that servants of defendant saw, or might have seen, him in time to have stopped the car and avoided the injury. Smith v. Railroad, 52 Mo.App. 36; Hickman v. Railroad, 47 Mo.App. 65; Dean v. Railroad, 108 Mo. 142.
This is an action by plaintiff, who sues by his next friend, for five thousand dollars damages, alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of the carelessness and negligence of defendant.
The petition alleges that on the third day of February, 1901, at about ten o'clock a. m., while plaintiff was crossing the tracks of defendant at a point about 125 feet west of Wyoming street on Ninth street, a car of defendant, running at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour, negligently and carelessly struck the plaintiff.
The specific allegations are that the bell was not rung; that the rate of speed was in excess of twelve miles an hour, in violation of an ordinance of Kansas City; that the defendant's servants in charge of the car failed to stop the car in time to avoid injuring plaintiff, when they knew, or by the use of ordinary care might have known, of the danger in which plaintiff was.
After the introduction of plaintiff's evidence, the defendant interposed a demurrer thereto, and on suggestion being made by the court that the same would be sustained the plaintiff took a nonsuit, which on motion was afterwards, over the objection of defendant, set aside. Defendant then and there excepted at the time and brings the case to this court on appeal.
So that the only question presented by this appeal is the action of the trial court in sustaining the motion to set aside the nonsuit.
Appellant's contention is that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion:
First, because the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant.
Second, because no reason exists for such action, there being no evidence in the case on which plaintiff could recover.
The contention of defendant is that the petition does not state a cause of action in that it does not show any legal capacity on the part of M. Cohn to maintain this action on behalf of Gilbert Cohn.
It is true that the petition nowhere alleges that M. Cohn had been appointed next friend by the circuit court, nor by the clerk thereof in vacation, but plaintiff claims that the answer is merely a general denial, hence that issue was not raised.
If the answer is merely a general denial this position is clearly sustained by the authorities cited by plaintiff. [Rogers v. Marsh, 73 Mo. 64; Randolph v. Railroad, 18 Mo.App. 609; Taylor v. Pullen, 152 Mo. 434, 53 S.W. 1086; Clowers v. Railroad, 21 Mo.App. 213.] The answer, however, "specifically denies that M. Cohn is the next friend of the plaintiff herein," and is responsive to the allegation of the petition in that regard. The defect in the petition was apparent upon its face. It showed that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to sue, while it should have alleged that the appointment of M. Cohn as next friend had been duly made in the mode pointed out by law. This defect could have been raised by demurrer or answer. It was, therefore, properly raised by answer. [Jones v. Steele, 36 Mo. 324; Casler v. Chase, 160 Mo. l. c. 418, 60 S.W. 1040.]
It is claimed that the court committed error in setting aside the nonsuit, because the alleged failure to ring the bell is not charged in the petition, nor shown in the evidence to have been the cause of the injury, and, for the further reason that the court erred in setting aside the nonsuit since on the whole case the plaintiff ought not to recover.
The only cause assigned for setting aside the nonsuit was that plaintiff was taken by surprise at the ruling of the court in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence. In this case, therefore, we will only pass upon the objections urged upon our attention by the defendant, and the first question is, would the fact that the petition, as we have already said, does not state a cause of action, necessarily result in a reversal of the order or judgment of the court setting aside the nonsuit?
The petition was amendable, but the court had no right to presume that the evidence would be stronger, or more cogent on another trial, and, it may be, for all we know, that the very reason upon which the motion was sustained and the nonsuit set aside was in order that plaintiff might amend his petition if he could, and desired to do so, and not that either of the other points insisted upon by defendant were well taken. This we think the only logical inference to be drawn from these facts. That the court had the discretionary right to set aside the nonsuit, upon motion, or of its own accord, in order that the petition might be amended and the ends of justice attained, or upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial