Cunningham v. Dickerson

• Decision Date: 16 February 1904
• Citation: 104 Mo. App. 410,79 S.W. 492
• Parties: CUNNINGHAM v. DICKERSON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

79 S.W. 492

104 Mo. App. 410

CUNNINGHAM v. DICKERSON.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 16, 1904.

BAILMENTS—HORSES—INJURIES—IMMODERATE DRIVING — JUSTICE OF THE PEACE — COMPLAINT—MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

1. In an action before a justice, a complaint stating that, on a certain day, plaintiff let to defendant a certain team of horses for hire; that defendant, contrary to his duty, drove the horses immoderately, and kept them negligently, whereby they became sick and permanently diseased; that plaintiff had lost their services from the date of the letting, and had expended $5 in doctoring the horses, and had sustained damages in the sum of $50—was not objectionable for want of facts.

2. In an action for injuries to plaintiff's horses, let to defendant, by reason of defendant's reckless driving and negligent care, where the horses were only impaired in value, and there was no evidence of any expenditure for doctoring, etc., the measure of damages was the difference between the value of the horses before the injury and immediately thereafter.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Texas County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Action by Sam Cunningham against Jerome Dickerson. From a justice's judgment in favor of plaintiff, affirmed on appeal to the circuit court, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. Covert and G. A. Watson, for appellant. H. W. Hiett and Robt. Lamar, for respondent.

BLAND, P. J.

The suit was begun before a justice of the peace, where the following complaint was filed: "Plaintiff, for cause of action, states that on the 13th day of May, 1901, he let to the defendant a certain team of horses, for hire, and that defendant, contrary to his duty, drove the horses immoderately, and kept them negligently, whereby said horses became sick and permanently diseased; that plaintiff has wholly lost the services of said horses from the said 13th day of May, 1901, to the present time; that plaintiff has expended in doctoring said horses the sum of five dollars. Wherefore plaintiff has sustained damages in the sum of fifty dollars." The cause was taken by appeal to the circuit court of Texas county, where, on a trial de novo, plaintiff recovered a judgment for $45. Defendant duly appealed to this court.

For a reversal of the judgment, appellant assigns two errors: First, that the complaint filed before the justice, and on which the cause was tried in the circuit court, fails to state any cause of action; second, that the court erroneously instructed the jury as to the measure of damages. The defendant was notified by the complaint that plaintiff claimed that on May 13, 1901, he let the defendant a team of horses; that defendant negligently overdrove said team of horses, and permanently injured them; that plaintiff had paid out $5 for doctoring the horses; and that he demanded judgment for $50 for permanent damage to the horses, and his expense in doctoring them. All the facts essential to a recovery are to be gathered from the complaint, and the defendant was fully notified by the complaint of these facts. Under all the authorities, this was sufficient to constitute a good complaint in a suit...