Cunningham v. City of St. Louis

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtNorton
Citation8 S.W. 787,96 Mo. 53
PartiesCUNNINGHAM v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
Decision Date18 June 1888
8 S.W. 787
96 Mo. 53
CUNNINGHAM
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
June 18, 1888.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — LIABILITY FOR DEFECTS IN COURT-HOUSE — CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

Under Const. Mo., art. 9, § 23, which requires the city of St. Louis to collect the state revenue, and "perform all other functions in relation to the state in the same manner as if it were a county," the relation of the city to its court-house is the same as that of the respective counties in the state to their court-houses, and, no action being given by statute against such municipalities for injuries resulting from negligence in relation to their court-houses, an action will not lie against said city by one injured by falling into a pit connected with its court-house.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; WILLIAM H. HORNER, Judge.

Action by Arthur I. Cunningham against the city of St. Louis for injuries. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,295.83. Defendant appealed.

Leverett Bell, for appellant. A. R. Taylor, for appellee.

NORTON, C. J.


This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries, in which plaintiff obtained judgment, from which the defendant has appealed. For his cause of action, plaintiff alleges in his petition that the city of St. Louis is a municipal corporation, and, by virtue of the laws of the state, owned and controlled the court-house building and grounds, bounded on the north by Chestnut street, on the west by Fifth street, on the south by Market street, and on the east by Fourth street; that plaintiff, while passing along a passage-way from the court-house entrance next south of that portion known as "Court-Room No. 2," endeavoring to go from said entrance to Fifth street, got out of his path, and fell into an open area or pit adjacent to said passage-way, and received the injury for which he sues. It is averred that said pit or area was, by reason of its proximity to said pathway, dangerous to persons while passing to and from said entrance; that it was unfenced, unguarded, and unlighted. The evidence tended to establish the averments of the petition, and that defendant was injured in the way set forth therein. The evidence also tended to show that the areas or pits, into one of which plaintiff fell had been constructed about 30 years ago for the purpose of furnishing light and ventilation to the basement of that wing of the court-house, and that the basement room of the building could not be utilized without light so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Pearson v. Kansas City, No. 30436.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1932
    ...in governmental functions. Stater v. Joplin, 189 Mo. App. 383, 176 S.W. 241; Ulrich v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 138; Cunningham v. St. Louis, 96 Mo. 53; Kruger v. Board of Education, 310 Mo. 248, 274 S.W. 814; Dick v. Board of Education, 238 S.W. 1073; Cochran v. Wilson, 287 Mo. 210, 229 S.W. 105......
  • Cochran v. Wilson, No. 21678.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 7, 1921
    ...right of action for such neglect is given by statute. Such has always been the rule in this state." In Cunningham v. St. Louis, 98 Mo. 53, 8 S. W. 787, an action was held not maintainable against the city for an injury resulting from its negligence in permitting an unguarded pit to exist ad......
  • Bd. Of Ed. v. Volk, 8943
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • May 23, 1905
    ...36 Mo. 555; Murtaugh v. St. Louis, 44 Mo. 479; Rowland v. Gallatin, 75 Mo. 134; Clark v. Adair County, 79 Mo. 536; Cunningham v. St. Louis, 96 Mo. 53; Ulrich v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 138; Bryant v. St. Paul, 33 Minn. 289; Grube v. St. Paul, 34 Minn. 402; Snider v. St. Paul, 51 Minn. 466; Mille......
  • Burke v. City of St. Louis, No. 48126
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1961
    ...Building is a governmental function to which the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies. The city cites Cunningham v. City of St. Louis, 96 Mo. 53, 55, 8 S.W. 787, and Pearson v. Kansas City, 331 Mo. 885, 55 S.W.2d 485, 487; but the ruling in each of said cases was made upon evidence introd......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Pearson v. Kansas City, No. 30436.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1932
    ...in governmental functions. Stater v. Joplin, 189 Mo. App. 383, 176 S.W. 241; Ulrich v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 138; Cunningham v. St. Louis, 96 Mo. 53; Kruger v. Board of Education, 310 Mo. 248, 274 S.W. 814; Dick v. Board of Education, 238 S.W. 1073; Cochran v. Wilson, 287 Mo. 210, 229 S.W. 105......
  • Cochran v. Wilson, No. 21678.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 7, 1921
    ...right of action for such neglect is given by statute. Such has always been the rule in this state." In Cunningham v. St. Louis, 98 Mo. 53, 8 S. W. 787, an action was held not maintainable against the city for an injury resulting from its negligence in permitting an unguarded pit to exist ad......
  • Bd. Of Ed. v. Volk, 8943
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • May 23, 1905
    ...36 Mo. 555; Murtaugh v. St. Louis, 44 Mo. 479; Rowland v. Gallatin, 75 Mo. 134; Clark v. Adair County, 79 Mo. 536; Cunningham v. St. Louis, 96 Mo. 53; Ulrich v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 138; Bryant v. St. Paul, 33 Minn. 289; Grube v. St. Paul, 34 Minn. 402; Snider v. St. Paul, 51 Minn. 466; Mille......
  • Burke v. City of St. Louis, No. 48126
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1961
    ...Building is a governmental function to which the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies. The city cites Cunningham v. City of St. Louis, 96 Mo. 53, 55, 8 S.W. 787, and Pearson v. Kansas City, 331 Mo. 885, 55 S.W.2d 485, 487; but the ruling in each of said cases was made upon evidence introd......
  • 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