Hughes v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R.R. Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | HOUGH |
| Citation | 66 Mo. 325 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1877 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. HANNIBAL & ST. JO. R. R. CO., Appellant. |
66 Mo. 325
HUGHES
v.
HANNIBAL & ST. JO. R. R. CO., Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
October Term, 1877.
[66 Mo. 326]
Appeal from Macon Court of Common Pleas.--HON. WILLIAM A. GUYSELMAN, Judge.
James Carr and H. B. Leach for appellant.
J. L. Berry for respondent.
HOUGH, J.
This was an action to recover the value of a heifer accidently drowned in an abandoned tank or well, situated in the open prairie in Macon county, upon the line of defendant's right of way, four feet eight inches of its diameter being on the defendant's land, and four feet thereof, on the land of the adjacent proprietor.
The plaintiff bases his right to recover upon the alleged negligence of defendant in failing to enclose or cover said well. No statutory liability is imposed upon the defendant for injuries like the one complained of, although occasioned by its failure to erect and maintain fences as required by the 43rd section of the law in relation to railroad companies. The liability of the defendant is therefore, such only as is imposed by the common law. Lafferty v. Han. & St. Jo. R. R., 44 Mo. 291; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Carraher, 47 Ill. 333.
Who made the excavation does not appear. It was used by the defendant for the purpose of a tank or watering place until a tank was erected at another place near by, when the well was abandoned and left uncovered and unenclosed. To divest the case of all embarrassing incidents, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, we will suppose the excavation to have been made by the defendant, wholly upon its own lands. So far as the present inquiry is concerned, the railroad company stands upon precisely the same footing as other land owners, and only those acts required of natural persons, under like circumstances, can be required of the defendant.
In this State, and in others similarly situated, it has
[66 Mo. 327]
been held that the owner of cattle may permit them to run at large and stray upon the unenclosed lands of others without incurring any liability for such technical trespass, but it has never been held that the owners of the unenclosed lands are required to make them safe for the pasturage of such stray cattle....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
...uncovered well, and the plaintiff's cattle strayed into it and were drowned, the company was not liable for them. Hughes v. Railroad Co., 66 Mo. 325. We may take judicial notice of the well-known habits of animals, and may conclude that horses on a railway track, which is fenced on either s......
-
Hall v. Callahan
...of his employment as her attorney. He was employed as an attorney at law to attend to certain cases therein specified, and generally to [66 Mo. 325]attend “to any and all cases that may hereafter arise affecting, or designing to affect the title of said Lizzie A. Nutter in and to the lands ......
-
Gillespie v. Wheatland Industrial Co., 779
...large. (1 Thomp. on Neg., Sec. 155). That rule is applicable to this state. (Martin v. Ry. Co., 15 Wyo. 493. See also Hughes v. R. R. Co., 66 Mo. 325; Wilt v. Couglin, (Mo. App.) 161 S.W. 888; Beinhorn v. Griswold, 27 Mont. 79, 69 P. 557). The statute cited in the opposing brief imposing li......
-
Barney v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.
...corporations stand in this regard on the same footing as individuals. Railroad Co. v. Carraher, 47 Ill. 333; Hughes v. Railroad Co., 66 Mo. 325; Hayes v. Railroad Co., 111 U. S. 228, 4 Sup. Ct. 369. It is well settled in this state that railroad companies are not required to fence their tra......
-
Hill v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
...uncovered well, and the plaintiff's cattle strayed into it and were drowned, the company was not liable for them. Hughes v. Railroad Co., 66 Mo. 325. We may take judicial notice of the well-known habits of animals, and may conclude that horses on a railway track, which is fenced on either s......
-
Hall v. Callahan
...of his employment as her attorney. He was employed as an attorney at law to attend to certain cases therein specified, and generally to [66 Mo. 325]attend “to any and all cases that may hereafter arise affecting, or designing to affect the title of said Lizzie A. Nutter in and to the lands ......
-
Gillespie v. Wheatland Industrial Co., 779
...large. (1 Thomp. on Neg., Sec. 155). That rule is applicable to this state. (Martin v. Ry. Co., 15 Wyo. 493. See also Hughes v. R. R. Co., 66 Mo. 325; Wilt v. Couglin, (Mo. App.) 161 S.W. 888; Beinhorn v. Griswold, 27 Mont. 79, 69 P. 557). The statute cited in the opposing brief imposing li......
-
Barney v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.
...corporations stand in this regard on the same footing as individuals. Railroad Co. v. Carraher, 47 Ill. 333; Hughes v. Railroad Co., 66 Mo. 325; Hayes v. Railroad Co., 111 U. S. 228, 4 Sup. Ct. 369. It is well settled in this state that railroad companies are not required to fence their tra......