Merz v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1886
• Citation: 88 Mo. 672,1 S.W. 382
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: MERZ v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.

1 S.W. 382

88 Mo. 672

MERZ v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1886.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — POLICE REGULATIONS — CONTROL OF STREETS — RAILROAD CARS ON — CONSTITUTIONS OF MISSOURI AND UNITED STATES.

Ordinance 10,305 of the city of St. Louis, regulating, within the city limits, the running and stopping of cars propelled by steam, does not violate either the constitution of the state or of the United States.

Appeal from St. Louis court of appeals.

Fred Gottschalk, for respondent, Anton Merz. T. J Portis, for appellant, Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

NORTON, J.

This suit was brought by plaintiff to recover damages for the loss of the services of his minor child, who was run over by three of defendant's cars, being operated in the limits of the city of St. Louis, whereby he lost his right arm. He obtained judgment in the circuit court for $1,703, which was affirmed by the St. Louis court of appeals, and the case is before us on appeal from that judgment. The appeal, being from a judgment for a less sum than $2,500, gives us no jurisdiction of the case, unless it appears that it falls within one of the classes of cases specified in section 12, art. 6, of the constitution, when an appeal may be taken from the St. Louis court of appeals to this court without reference to the amount in dispute. One of this class is when the case involves a construction of the constitution of this state or of the United States. It is claimed that the case before us falls within that class, in this: that ordinance 10,305 of the city of St. Louis, which was received in evidence over defendant's objection, and upon which plaintiff relied for a recovery, is violative both of the federal and state constitutions. The only question, therefore, to be considered on this appeal, is whether the city had power to pass the ordinance in question, and whether it is or not constitutional.

So much of it as is necessary to a fair consideration of the points raised by appellant against its validity is as follows:

"An ordinance entitled `An ordinance to regulate the speed, within the limits of the city of St. Louis, of cars and locomotives propelled by steampower;' approved January 22, 1877:

"Section 1. It shall not be lawful, within the limits of the city of St. Louis, for any car, cars, or locomotives, propelled by steam-power, to run at a rate of speed exceeding six miles per hour; but nothing in this section shall be so construed as to apply to any car, cars, or locomotives running over the track or tracks which are maintained along the river bank between Arsenal street and Elwood street.

"Sec. 2. It shall not be lawful, within the limits of the city of St. Louis, for any car, cars, or locomotives, propelled by steam-power, to obstruct any street crossing by standing thereon longer than five minutes, and, when moving, the bell of the engine shall be constantly sounded within said limits; and if any freight-car, cars, or locomotives, propelled by steam-power, be backing within said limits, a man shall be stationed on the top of the car at the end furthest from the engine to give danger signals; and no freight train shall at any time be moved within the city limits without it be well manned with experienced brakemen, at their posts, who shall be so stationed as to see the danger signals, and hear the signals from the engine. The...