Egan v. United Rys. Co. St. Louis, No. 16308.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtNipper
Citation227 S.W. 126
PartiesEGAN et al. v. UNITED RYS. CO. ST. LOUIS.
Decision Date04 January 1921
Docket NumberNo. 16308.
227 S.W. 126
EGAN et al.
v.
UNITED RYS. CO. ST. LOUIS.
No. 16308.
St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.
January 4, 1921.
Rehearing Denied February 4, 1921.

[227 S.W. 127]

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by John P. Egan and another against the United Railways Company of St. Louis. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Earl M. Pirkey and John T. Manning, both of St. Louis, for appellants.

T. E. Francis and W. M. Hezel, both of St. Louis,' for respondent.

NIPPER, C.


This is an action for damages brought by plaintiffs, husband and wife, on account of alleged injury to plaintiffs' property, located in the city of St. Louis, caused by the defendant's cars being operated over a defective track located in front of the premises of plaintiffs. The defects in the track consisted of broken places in the rails, and holes in the surface of the street under the rails, so that when the street cars were operated over this track they would strike the end of the rails, jump up and down, and jar the premises of plaintiffs. The petition seeks to recover for such damages occurring between July 20, 1916, and January 20, 1917.

Plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show that these damages, consisting of cracks in the walls, ceilings, and foundation of the house, and the separation of the steps from the porch, were caused by the vibration and shaking produced by defendant's street cars while being operated over its defective tracks in front of their premises. The evidence offered on the part of the defendant was to the effect that the damages to plaintiffs' property were caused by the natural shrinkage in the material used in the building located on these premises, and the settling of the foundation. There was a verdict for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

The first assignment of error urged for our consideration is that there was error in the modified instruction No. 1 given for the plaintiffs, and particularly in that portion which reads as follows:

"* * * And that when defendant, during the period between July 20, 1916, and January, 1917, operated cars over said rails, at said places, they caused the street and said building of plaintiff to be jarred and shaken, and the house to be damaged."

The objection urged to this is that it erroneously confined the plaintiffs' right to recover to the period between July 20, 1916, and January 1, 1917, while the petition alleged, and the proof showed, damages occurring up to January 20, 1917. When this instruction is read as a whole, and in connection with the other instructions given in the case, we do not think that such was reversible error, because in the same instruction the

227 S.W. 128

jury were instructed that, if they found that plaintiffs were the owners of the property, and the defendant was operating a street railway line along Broadway, on which these premises were located, between July 20,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 3, 1944
    ...177 S.W. 764; Jackman v. Railroad, 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Rooker v. Railroad, 226 S.W. 69; Egan v. United Rys., 227 S.W. 126; Clear v. Van Blarcum, 241 S.W. 81; Wair v. A.C. & F. Co., 285 S.W. 155; Mahaney v. K.C., Clay County & St. J. Auto Transit Co., 329 Mo. 793,......
  • Smith v. Boudreau, No. 23299.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 7, 1935
    ...defendants' counterclaim, Abstract of Record, pages 50-52). "The court erred in its comments on the merits of the case." Egan v. Ry., 227 S.W. 126; Vaughn v. May, 9 S.W. (2d) 156; Cable v. Johnson, 63 S.W. (2d) 442; Wair v. Amer. Car & Foundry Co., 285 S.W. 155. (20) The court erred in allo......
  • State ex rel. Thompson v. Rutledge, No. 32732.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 19, 1933
    ...239 Mo. 475: Hutchinson v. Richmond Safety Gate Co., 152 S.W. 52; Wair v. American Car & Fdy. Co., 285 S.W. 155; Egan v. United Rys. Co., 227 S.W. 126; Rucker v. Southern Ry. Co., 226 S.W. 69; Kribs v. Jefferson City Light Co., 215 S.W. 762; Rose v. Kansas City, 102 S.W. 578; State v. Davis......
  • Watson v. Aronberg, No. 20549.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 2, 1929
    ...380; State v. Davis, 284 Mo. 695, 225 S. W. 707; Dreyfus v. Ry. Co., 124 Mo. App. 585, 102 S. W. 53; Egan v. United Rys. Co. (Mo. App.) 227 S. W. 126; Landers v. Ry. Co., 134 Mo. App. 80, 114 S. W. 543; Wright v. Richmond, 20 Mo. App. 76; McElwain v. Dunham (Mo. App.) 221 S. W. 773; Rooker ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 3, 1944
    ...177 S.W. 764; Jackman v. Railroad, 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Rooker v. Railroad, 226 S.W. 69; Egan v. United Rys., 227 S.W. 126; Clear v. Van Blarcum, 241 S.W. 81; Wair v. A.C. & F. Co., 285 S.W. 155; Mahaney v. K.C., Clay County & St. J. Auto Transit Co., 329 Mo. 793,......
  • Smith v. Boudreau, No. 23299.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 7, 1935
    ...defendants' counterclaim, Abstract of Record, pages 50-52). "The court erred in its comments on the merits of the case." Egan v. Ry., 227 S.W. 126; Vaughn v. May, 9 S.W. (2d) 156; Cable v. Johnson, 63 S.W. (2d) 442; Wair v. Amer. Car & Foundry Co., 285 S.W. 155. (20) The court erred in allo......
  • State ex rel. Thompson v. Rutledge, No. 32732.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 19, 1933
    ...239 Mo. 475: Hutchinson v. Richmond Safety Gate Co., 152 S.W. 52; Wair v. American Car & Fdy. Co., 285 S.W. 155; Egan v. United Rys. Co., 227 S.W. 126; Rucker v. Southern Ry. Co., 226 S.W. 69; Kribs v. Jefferson City Light Co., 215 S.W. 762; Rose v. Kansas City, 102 S.W. 578; State v. Davis......
  • Watson v. Aronberg, No. 20549.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 2, 1929
    ...380; State v. Davis, 284 Mo. 695, 225 S. W. 707; Dreyfus v. Ry. Co., 124 Mo. App. 585, 102 S. W. 53; Egan v. United Rys. Co. (Mo. App.) 227 S. W. 126; Landers v. Ry. Co., 134 Mo. App. 80, 114 S. W. 543; Wright v. Richmond, 20 Mo. App. 76; McElwain v. Dunham (Mo. App.) 221 S. W. 773; Rooker ......
  • 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