Cunningham v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1879 |
| Citation | 70 Mo. 202 |
| Parties | CUNNINGHAM v. THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--HON. JOS. P. GRUBB, Judge.
REVERSED.
Geo. W. Easley and A. W. Mullins for appellant.
L. E. Carter for respondent.
This suit was brought to recover double damages for injuries to plaintiff's cow while on defendant's road in Washington township, Buchanan county, and is founded on the 43rd sec. of 1 Wag. Stat., 310. To authorize a recovery under this section the statement of the cause of action must allege that the injury complained of was occasioned by the failure of the company to erect and maintain good and substantial fences along the sides of their road. The statement in the case before us neither contains such an averment, nor any one equivalent to it, and it must, therefore, be held to be insufficient to support the judgment rendered by the trial court. This point was expressly so passed upon in the cases of Luckie v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co., 67 Mo. 245, and Cecil v. Pacific R. R. Co., 47 Mo. 246. Judgment reversed, in which all the judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radcliffe v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
...occasioned by the failure of defendant to erect and maintain good and sufficient fences, etc. Tucker v. Railroad, 67 Mo. 245; Cunningham v. Railroad, 70 Mo. 202; Sloan Railroad, 74 Mo. 47. (3) Nor does the statement allege a cause of action under section 806 of the Revised Statutes. The all......
-
Kirn v. Cape Girardeau & Chester Railroad Company
...v. Railroad, 82 Mo. 169; Schulte v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 324; Davis v. Railroad, 65 Mo. 441; Rowland v. Railroad, 73 Mo. 619; Cunningham v. Railroad, 70 Mo. 202. (b) fails to allege that the injury was occasioned by a failure to maintain a fence anywhere, much less at a point where a fence was ......
-
Moore v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co.
...because it was nowhere averred in the statement. Cecil v. Railroad Co., 47 Mo. 246; Luckie v. Railroad Co., 67 Mo. 245; Cunningham v. Railroad Co., 70 Mo. 202; Johnson v. Railway Co., 76 Mo. 553; Nance v. Railroad Co., 79 Mo. 196. Rush & Alexander for respondent. It is not necessary that th......
-
Tickell v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
... ... Morrow v ... Railroad, 82 Mo. 169; Cunningham v. Railroad, ... 70 Mo. 202; Sloan v. Railroad, 74 Mo. 47; Luckie ... v ... ...