Dillard v. St. Louis

• Decision Date: 31 October 1874
• Citation: 58 Mo. 69
• Parties: JAMES D. DILLARD & WALKER T. FIELDS, Respondents, v. ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY & NORTHERN R. CO., Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

58 Mo. 69

JAMES D. DILLARD & WALKER T. FIELDS, Respondents,

v.ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY & NORTHERN R. CO., Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1874.

Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court.

W. Blodget & M. McKeag and Geo. B. McFarlane, for Appellant.

I. Having claimed damages to the amount of $50.00 for injuries to personal property under the third sub-division of § 3, Chap. 82, pp. 808-9, plaintiffs could not in the same suit claim $150 damages under the fifth sub-division of said section. (Buckner vs. Armour, 1 Mo., 534; Glasby vs. Puett, 26 Mo., 122.)

Forrist & Ladd, for Respondents.

I. As to the horse killed, value could not be a jurisdictional element, and, whether great or small, cannot now be considered in determining the jurisdictional question raised.

II. The statement could contain but a single count because there was but a single cause of action; and in all respects where the averment of value could be material in determining the magistrate's jurisdiction, the value was placed at $50, a sum confessedly within the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and in legal effect, for all the purposes of determining the question of jurisdiction, the case stands as if respondents had claimed and demanded only such sum of $50.

VORIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought before a justice of the peace on the following statement or cause of action:

“James Dillard and Walker Fields say, that they are partners, doing business under the firm, name and style of Dillard & Fields, and that the defendant is a corporation created by and existing under the laws of, and doing business in the State of Missouri, by operating a railroad running from St. Louis to Moberly in said State, and through township of Salt River and the City of Mexico in Audrain county, in said State; that on or about the 23rd day of July, 1872, the plaintiffs were the owners of one horse of the value of $150, and a set of harness thereon of the value of $50, and which horse and harness on said last named day, in Salt River township, by a train of cars of defendant, then there being run over and along defendant's said railroad, managed and controlled by the defendant, its agents and servants, run over and killed said horse, and broke, injured and destroyed said harness; that said defendant, its agents and servants in running and managing said train, then there run and managed it in a negligent and careless manner, and by means of such negligence and carelessness of said defendant, its agents and servants, said horse was killed and said harness destroyed; that said Salt River township in which said horse was killed, as alleged, is the same township, of which, D. M. McIntyre, before whom this suit is pending, is a justice of the peace. By means of all the premises, plaintiff hath been damaged in the sum of $200, and for which he asks judgment with costs.”

A trial was had before the justice, where a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for the sum of $175. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the Audrain Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court the defendant appeared and filed its motion to dismiss the suit, for the reason, as was charged, that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter as combined, and for the amount claimed, and for which judgment was rendered.

This motion to dismiss the suit was overruled by the court and the defendant at the time excepted. A trial was afterwards had and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for the sum of $170.

The defendant filed its motions for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, setting forth all of the usual grounds for said motions, as well as that the justice of the peace before whom the action was brought had no jurisdiction of the cause of action, and that the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant was improperly overruled by the court.

The motions for a new trial and in arrest of the judgment being severally overuled by the court, the defendant excepted and appealed to this court.

During the progress of the trial had in the Circuit Court a number of exceptions were saved to the rulings of the court in the admission and exclusion of evidence, and in the giving and...