Edwards v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | HOUGH |
| Citation | 66 Mo. 567 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1877 |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH R. R. Co., Appellant. |
66 Mo. 567
EDWARDS
v.
HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH R. R. Co., Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
October Term, 1877.
[66 Mo. 568]
Appeal from Macon Court of Common Pleas.--HON. WILLIAM A. GUYSELMAN, Judge.
James Carr and H. B. Leach for appellant
The statute does not apply to injuries done at points where it would be improper, or is illegal for the railroad company to maintain fences. Indianapolis R. R. Co. v. Parker, 29 Ind. 471; Same v. Kinney, 8 Ind. 402; Same v. Oestel, 20 Ind. 231; Great Western R. R. Co. v. Morthland, 30 Ill. 457; Bennett v. Chicago Ry. Co., 19 Wis. 145; Davis v. Burlington R. R. Co., 26 Iowa 549; Packard v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co., 30 Id. 474; Smith v. Chicago R. R. Co., 34 Id. 509. The defendant was under no legal obligation to inclose its railroad with a fence where it passes through the limits of an incorporated town. Meyer v. N. M. R. R. Co., 35 Mo. 352; Lloyd v. Pac. R. R. Co., 49 Mo. 199; Iba v. H. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 45 Mo. 473; Ells v. Pacific R. R. Co., 48 Mo. 232; Wier v. St. Louis R. R. Co., 48 Mo. 558; Wag. Stat., p. 310, § 43; Gerren v. H. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 405.
Elijah A. Fletcher for respondent, cited Ells v. Pacific R. R. Co., 48 Mo. 231.
HOUGH, J.
The petition in the present case contained five counts, in each of which the plaintiff claimed double damages under the 43rd section of the railroad law, for certain hogs killed by defendant's trains in the year 1873, within the corporate limits of the town of New Cambria, in the county of Macon. The cause was tried by the court without the aid of a jury; the finding was for the plaintiff, judgment for double damages was rendered on each of the counts, and defendant has appealed. It was alleged in each count that the hogs were negligently killed at a point within said corporate limits, where there were no
[66 Mo. 569]
fences, and where the land was not laid out in lots, streets and alleys, and where the said railroad of defendant passed along and through uninclosed prairie land, and not at a public crossing. The defendant expressly admitted that it had not erected or maintained any fences within the corporate limits of the town of New Cambria, and did not deny the allegation that at the point where the killing took place the land was not laid out in lots, streets and alleys. All other allegations were denied. It appears from the testimony that the land included within the corporate limits of the town of New Cambria was originally prairie land, and there was testimony tending to show negligence in the management of the trains. The killing of the hogs was admitted on the trial. The plaintiff bases his right to recover upon the negligence of the defendant, and its failure to erect and maintain fences within the corporate limits of New Cambria.
It has been expressly decided by this court that in actions under the 43rd section of the railroad law, there can be no recovery for injuries resulting from the negligent management of the train. Cary v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Rwy. Co., 60 Mo. 209; Crutchfield v. Same, 64 Mo. 255. The plaintiff could not recover in this action, therefore, on the ground of negligence.
As to the second point, there is an apparent conflict in the decisions of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acord v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
...long since established the rule that no fences are required thereby within the limits of incorporated towns and cities. [Edwards v. Ry., 66 Mo. 567; Loyd v. Ry., 49 Mo. 199; Wier v. Ry., 48 Mo. 558; Iba v. Ry., 45 Mo. 469; Meyer v. Ry., 35 Mo. 352; Smith v. Ry., 111 Mo.App. 410, 85 S.W. 972......
-
Radcliffe v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
...fence." This failure is fatal. R. S., sec. 2124; Clarkson v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 583; Swearengen v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 73; Edwards v. Railroad, 66 Mo. 567; Nance v. Railroad, 78 Mo. 196; Wyman v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 247; Tiarks v. Railroad, 58 Mo. 45; Russell v. Railroad, 83 Mo. 507. The strictness......
-
McIntosh v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.
...84 Mo. 585; Russell v. Railroad, 83 Mo. 510; Swearingen v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 75; Robertson v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 412; Edwards v. Railroad, 66 Mo. 567; Schooling v. Railroad, 75 Mo. 518; Morris v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 367; Lloyd v. Railroad, 49 Mo. 199; Rhea v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 348; Elliott v. Rail......
-
Hill v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...33 Mo.App. p. 509; Suckie v. Railroad, 67 Mo. 245; Wood v. Railroad, 58 Mo. 109; Collins v. Railroad, 65 Mo. 230; Edwards v. Railroad, 66 Mo. 567. (5) The double damage act (R. S. 1889, sec. 2611) and section 4428, commonly called the single damage act, furnish a complete remedy for the kil......
-
Bernardi v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...cultivated or improved, such as farm lands, pastures, orchards and other sections under inclosure. (Edwards v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co., 66 Mo. 567.) The statute of Missouri, under construction in the latter case, was similar to the Idaho statute, except it also specified "open prairie" in......
-
Hester v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, 35
...erect and maintain fences and cattle guards along its right-of-way over inclosed lands. 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 450 and notes; 122 Mo.App. 492; 66 Mo. 567; 37 Id. 654; 144 Mo.App. 691; 129 S.W. 52; 20 Mo.App. 644; 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 452 and note. Thos. S. Buzbee, H. T. Harrison and C. L. Johns......
-
Smith v. St. Louis, M. & S. Ry. Co.
...statute has been held not to require railroad tracks within the limits of an incorporated town or city to be fenced. Edwards v. Railroad, 66 Mo. 567. No express exemption from the duty to fence everywhere outside of towns is mentioned in the statutes; but exceptions of two kinds have been a......
-
Clarkson v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co.
...As a statement of a statutory cause of action, the complaint is insufficient. Swearingen v. R. R., 64 [84 Mo. 584]Mo. 73; Edwards v. R. R., 66 Mo. 567; Wallace v. R. R., 74 Mo. 594; Wymore v. R. R., 79 Mo. 247; Johnson v. R. R., 76 Mo. 554; Nance v. R. R., 79 Mo. 196. (2) The court erred in......