Matthews v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 23 November 1897 |
Citation | 44 S.W. 802,142 Mo. 645 |
Parties | MATTHEWS v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Clay county; E. J. Broaddus, Judge.
Action by Alexander B. Matthews against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company for destruction by fire of barn and contents. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Elijah Robinson and Stewart Carkener, for appellant. Warner, Dean, Gibson & McLeod and Stewart Taylor, for respondent.
This is an action under section 2615 of the Revised Statutes of 1889 of the state to recover damages for the destruction by fire of the barn of plaintiff and its contents, charged to have been communicated to them by sparks from one of defendant's engines. The damages claimed for the destruction of the barn is $7,394.21, and for the loss of the contents, consisting of agricultural implements, grain, hay, etc., is $5,042.70. The answer is: First, a general denial; second, contributory negligence; third, a plea in mitigation, on account of insurance collected by plaintiff on account of the loss; and, fourth, that the land was mortgaged as security for a debt, and the mortgagee was a necessary party. A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $7,000, and defendant appealed.
It appeared from the evidence that plaintiff was the owner of a farm of about 1,000 acres in Jackson county, on the line of defendant's railroad. Plaintiff was a dealer in fine cattle, and the farm was used in his business. About the year 1887 plaintiff built on the farm, near Blue station, and within about 135 feet of defendant's railroad track and switches, a valuable barn, and there after used the same for sheltering his cattle and for storing feed and implements and machinery used on the farm. In the second story of the barn, on the side next the railroad, plaintiff left an opening for the purpose of use in unloading and storing hay and other feed. This opening was provided with a door, which was generally kept closed. On the night of the 1st day of September, 1891, the barn and its contents were burned. The evidence, which was wholly circumstantial, tended to prove that the fire was started by a spark from one of defendant's engines being blown into the opening in the second story, the door of which plaintiff had neglected to close. Defendant offered evidence which proved that prior to the fire plaintiff executed and delivered to one Smart a deed of trust conveying to him the land to secure to one ____ the payment of certain notes therein described. The notes had not matured at the commencement of the suit, but before the trial they were paid by a sale of the land under the deed of trust. It was shown also that at the time the property was burned it was insured for the benefit of plaintiff, and that the insurance was afterwards paid to him.
At the request of plaintiff the court gave to the jury the following instructions:
The court refused to give instructions 7 and 8 asked by defendant as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ingram v. Prairie Block Coal Co.
...115 Mo. 205; Cochran v. People's Ry. Co., 131 Mo. 607; Logan v. Met. St. Ry., 183 Mo. 582; Walser v. Wear, 141 Mo. 443; Matthews v. Railway, 142 Mo. 645. (4) While a witness plaintiff was permitted to say that he would not have been at the place where he was injured, had he not been given t......
-
Landau v. Schmitt Contracting Co.
...of such tort-feasor, nor lessen his liability in any respect. Matthews v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., 121 Mo. 298; Matthews v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 142 Mo. 645; Erhart v. R.R., 136 Mo. App. 617; Swift & Co. v. Wabash R.R. Co., 149 Mo. App. 526. (2) The courts have universally recognized......
-
Bilsky v. Sun Insurance Office, Limited
...Life Ins. Co. (Mo. Sup.), 225 S.W. 695; Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lusk et al., 205 Mo. App. 185, 223 S.W. 804; Matthews v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 142 Mo. 645, l.c. 656-7. (5) Separate inferences may be properly drawn from proof of separate facts without violating the rule prohibiting......
-
Eurengy v. Equitable Realty Corp.
...Krost v. Moyer, 207 N.W. 311, 166 Minn. 153; Hawkins v. Klein, 255 Pac. 570, 124 Okla. 161; 16 R.C.L., sec. 629, p. 1113; Matthews v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 142 Mo. 645; Craig v. Ry. Co., 197 S.W. 141, 217 Mo. 516. (2) This suit must fail because of the absence of certain necessary and indispens......