Farrell v. Union Trust Co.
Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
Citation | 77 Mo. 475 |
Parties | FARRELL v. THE UNION TRUST COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court.--HON. JOHN T. REDD, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Smith & Krauthoff and Thomas J. Portis for appellant.
F. C. Farr for respondent.
This action was instituted before a justice of the peace, and the following is the statement of the cause of action filed:
“The plaintiff states that the defendant, the Union Trust Company of New York, is a corporation incorporated under and by the law of New York, and as such, on or about the 24th day of July, 1878, said company, as trustee for the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad Company, under the laws of the State of Missouri, had possession of and was operating a railroad running in and through Monroe county, Missouri, known as the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad, and that said railroad ran through and along an inclosed field of plaintiff's in Marion township, in Monroe county, Missouri; that defendant, on the day and year aforesaid, had wholly failed and neglected to erect or maintain good and substantial fences along the sides of its said railroad where the same so passes through and along said inclosed field, as defendant was required to do under the law of the State of Missouri in such cases made and provided; that by reason of such failure and neglect of the defendant to erect and maintain fences as aforesaid, a certain roan horse of the value of $80, a certain brown horse mule of the value of $80, a certain mouse-colored mare mule of the value of $35, and a certain mouse-colored horse mule of the value of $40, all then and there being the property of the plaintiff, got on the track of the said railroad, so operated by the defendant, on or about the 25th day of July, 1878, and the defendant on the day and year last aforesaid, by its agents, servants and employes, while running its engines and cars along and over the track of its said railroad, in said township of Marion, in Monroe county, and in and through plaintiff's said inclosed field, ran its said engines and cars against and upon said horse and three mules, and thereby then and there killed said horse and three mules, so that they were wholly lost to plaintiff; that said horse and mules were so killed at a point on said railroad which was not inclosed by a good and substantial fence, and at a point on said railroad that was not a public crossing, and a point within the inclosed field of plaintiff, as aforesaid.”
On a trial in the justice's court plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant appealed to the circuit court of Monroe county, where plaintiff again obtained a judgment, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
One of the points relied upon for a reversal is, that the statement is defective in not alleging that the animals killed entered upon the track of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ackerman v. Thompson
... ... Schneider, 146 ... S.W.2d 584, 347 Mo. 102; Forest City Mfg. v ... International L.G.W. Union, 111 S.W.2d 934, 233 Mo.App ... 935; Memphis & C.R. Co. v. Hoechner, 67 F. 656; ... North ... Sec. 124, Title 28, U.S.C.A.; Fullerton v. Fordyce, ... 25 S.W. 587, 121 Mo. 1; Farrell v. Union Trust Co., ... 77 Mo. 475. (2) The evidence does show that the plaintiff had ... a ... ...
-
Bradford Construction Co. v. Heflin
... ... the yard of a railroad company. Union Trust Co. v ... Thomason, 25 Kan. 1; Railroad Co. v ... Harris, 33 Kan. 416 (6 P. 571); ... railroad corporation shall be responsible, etc ... Farrell v. Union Trust Co., 77 Mo. 475, ... also holds that a trustee of a railroad is within the ... ...
-
Ringo v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
...entered was where the track passed through, along, or adjoining enclosed fields and not at the crossing of a public highway. Farrell v. Union Trust Co., 77 Mo. 475; Terry Railroad, 77 Mo. 254; Perrequez v. Railroad, 78 Mo. 92; Wade v. Railroad, 78 Mo. 362; Rozzelle v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 349; ......
-
Wall v. Platt
... ... and which are imposed by the exercise of the power conferred ... by it. Central Trust Co. v. New York, C. & N.R. Co., ... 110 N.Y. 250, 257, 18 N.E. 92. They receive the earnings, and ... conclusion to which we have come. Farrell v. Trust ... Co., 77 Mo. 475; Mikkelson v. Truesdale (Minn.) ... 65 N.W. 260; Rouse v. Redinger, ... ...