Kenney v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.

Decision Date31 October 1883
Citation80 Mo. 573
PartiesKENNEY v. THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Caldwell Circuit Court.--HON. E. J. BROADDUS, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

G. W. Easley for appellant.

Every prima facie case is founded on a presumption of law made by the court, and never on inference made by the jury as a deduction from other facts. Best on Ev., (Chamberlayne's Ed.) § 304; Stephen's Ev., (May's Ed.) 36; State v. Kelly, 73 Mo. 608; Garvin v. Williams, 44 Mo. 465; 50 Mo. 206. Admit that the escape of fire from the engine raises a presumption of law that it was negligently permitted to do so, yet it is for the court, and not the for jury, to determine the amount and character of evidence to overcome it, and when defendant's evidence is entirely uncontradicted, it is error for the court to submit the case to the jury. Spaulding v. Railroad Co., 33 Wis. 382. And when the verdict is made, against the uncontradicted evidence, it will be set aside. Reed v. Morse, 34 Wis. 315; Freemouth v. London, etc., R. R. Co., 10 C. B. (N. S.) 89. The defendant's first instruction should have been given. Spaulding v. Railroad Co., 33 Wis. 582; Reading, etc., R. R. Co. v. Latshaw, 2 A. & E. R. R. Cases 267. Where defendant's evidence to disprove the negligent escape of the fire is complete, and no fact appears apart from the mere escape of the fire from which negligence may be found, the loss is damnum absque injuria. Turnpike Co. v. Railroad Co.,54 Pa. St. 345; Railroad Co. v. Hendrickson,80 Pa. St. 182; Flynn v. Railroad Co., 6 Am. Rep. 597, note. The continuance asked by the defendant, should have been granted. On the evidence, there is no pretense that the fire was not there before the engine passed. The question whether the failure of defendant's men to extinguish the fire creates a cause of action, is not in the record. That it does not create a cause of action, see Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Shipley, 39 Md. 251; Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Paramore, 31 Ind. 143; Kenney v. Railroad Co., 70 Mo. 253.

Shanklin, Low & McDougal for respondent.

The court did not err in overruling defendant's application for a continuance. Defendant did not show the diligence the law requires. Wood v. Railroad Co., 58 Mo. 109; State v. Burns, 54 Mo. 274; Evans v. Pond, 30 Mo. 235; Scogin v. Hudopeth, 3 Mo. 123. The granting of continuances rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and every intendment is made in favor of the ruling of that court. Leabo v. Goode, 67 Mo. 126, 132; King v. Pearce, 40 Mo. 222; Board of Regents v. Linscott, I Pac. Rep. 81; Riggs v. Fenton, 3 Mo. 28; State v. Worrell, 55 Mo. 256; Garret v. Railroad Co., 36 Iowa 121; Calhoun v. Crawford, 50 Mo. 458. The court did not err in refusing the instruction requested by defendant, for it asked the court to find, as a matter of law, that the prima facie case made by plaintiff was rebutted. It was for the court, not the witnesses, to pass on the question of fact. Poeffers v. Railroad Co., 67 Mo. 716; Kenney v. Railroad Co., 70 Mo. 243; Coates v. Railroad Co., 61 Mo. 38. The first instruction asked by the defendant ignored the fact that the defendant's servants negligently permitted the fire to destroy plaintiff's property. Rolke v. Railroad Co., 26 Wis. 537; Westfall v. Erie R. R. Co., 5 Hun 75; Kenney v. Railroad Co., 63 Mo. 99. In Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Shipley, 39 Md. 251, the court only held that the company was not bound to keep men stationed along its track to put out the fire; that such a rule would be impracticable.

HENRY, J.

This is the third time this case has been here on defendant's appeal. It is an action to recover damages for property of plaintiff destroyed by fire, which, plaintiff alleges, was set out by defendant's negligence. The pleadings are substantially the same as when the cause was here before, and the facts are not materially different. See 70 Mo. 253.

It appears from the transcript now before us, that at the June term, 1880, of the Caldwell circuit court, an order was made requiring defendant to supply the pleadings in the cause within thirty days of the close of that term, and continuing the case to the next term. It does not appear why the defendant was required to supply the pleadings, but it may be inferred that it was through its fault that they were missing. On the first day of the succeeding term, defendant having failed to supply the pleadings, plaintiff had leave to file his petition as a substitute for the original, and on the same day a judgment by default was rendered against defendant, which, on the fifth day of the term, on defendant's motion, was set aside, whereupon plaintiff withdrew the petition he had filed as a substitute, and defendant filed substitutes for the original pleadings, together with an amended answer, which differed from the original only in that it contained an allegation that by virtue of its charter it had the right to use locomotive engines, moved and worked by steam as a motive power to draw cars and trains, upon which, however, no issue was made by the replication. Defendant, thereupon, applied for a postponement of the trial for two days, which was refused, and then applied for a continuance of the cause to the next term, on account of the absence of material witnesses, and of what occurred in relation to the substitution of the pleadings, etc. This application was refused, and the propriety of that action of the court is the principal matter for consideration, if we adhere to our rulings in the cause when last here.

It was the duty of the defendant to supply the missing record. It had from the June to the October term, 1880, to comply with the order. The affidavit shows no good reason why it was not done. The pleadings could have been supplied from the record of this court. In fact the defendant did supply them at the October term; must have known it could supply them, and should have used due diligence in getting ready for a trial of the cause at that term. The cause was pending and for trial at the October term, notwithstanding the lost pleadings had to be supplied. Defendant did not know, could not have known, of the substitute petition filed by plaintiff and of the judgment rendered upon it. That occurred on the first day of the term, and furnishes no earthly excuse to defendant for not getting ready for trial in the interim between the two terms. The court very properly refused both defendant's application for a postponement and for continuance.

The following are instructions asked by defendant, the first of which was refused and the second given:

1. It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Guthrie v. Holmes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 17, 1917
    .......         Action by Joseph A. Guthrie, administrator, against Conway F. Holmes. Judgment for ...Boone v. Railroad, 20 Mo. App. 232; Kenney v. Railway, 80 Mo. 573; Gregory v. Chambers, 78 Mo. loc. cit. 298, 299; ......
  • Peterson v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1915
    ...that after a prima fade case has once been made out, the case can never be taken from the jury. Boone v. Wabash, 20 Mo. App. 232; Kenny v. Railway, 80 Mo. 573; Gregory v. Chambers, 78 Mo. 298, 299; Cannon v. Moore, 17 Mo. App. 102; Gibson v. Zimmerman, 27 Mo. App. 90; Milliken v. Com. Co., ......
  • Berry v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 5, 1894
    ...the jury. Hipsley v. Railway Co., 88 Mo. 348; Brown v. Railway Co., 13 Mo. App. 462; Sappington v. Railway Co., 14 Mo. App. 86; Kenney v. Railroad Co., 80 Mo. 573; Wise v. Railroad Co., 85 Mo. 178. It is said to be the right and province of the jury to decide all such issues, and that the s......
  • Berry v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 5, 1894
    ......462;. Sappington v. Railroad , 14 Mo.App. 86; Kenney v. Railroad , 80 Mo. 573; Wise v. Railroad , 85 Mo. 178. . . ......
  • 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