Morris v. Mattingly
Decision Date | 28 February 1920 |
Docket Number | No. 2514.,2514. |
Citation | 218 S.W. 922,204 Mo. App. 669 |
Parties | MORRIS v. MATTINGLY (two cases). |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; John A. Gloriod, Special Judge.
Separate actions by S. O. Morris and by Emma Morris against John M. Mattingly. Judgment for defendant in each action, and the plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Wilson Cramer, of Jackson, and Henson & Woody, of Poplar Bluff, for appellants.
Lew R. Thomason, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is a suit brought under section 5433, R. S. of 1909, providing for double damages if a person shall willfully set fire to any woods, marshes, or prairies so as to occasion damages to another person. There were two cases filed in the circuit court, one by plaintiff S. 0. Morris, and the other by his wife, Emma Morris, both against the defendant, in which petitions it is alleged that the defendant willfully set fire to brush, weeds, and grass on his land which adjoined the land of Emma Morris; that it was done at a time when there was much combustible vegetation between the defendant's land where he set out the fire and plaintiffs' land; and that the same was done when the defendant knew that the fire would spread to plaintiffs' property. The claim for damages made by S. 0. Morris was that the fire destroyed a corn crop which he was growing on his wife's land, and he seeks damages for that. The same facts are set up in the petition filed by his wife, charging that her property was damaged, in that trees were injured and destroyed and fencing was destroyed by the fire. By agreement of the parties, the suits were consolidated and tried as one. It appears from the record that on the first trial of this cause in the circuit court Emma Morris recovered a judgment but her husband, S. 0. Morris, did not. On motions filed by plaintiffs, a new trial was granted. At the conclusion of the testimony on `the second trial, the court gave an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and directed a verdict for defendant, judgments were entered accordingly, and it is from this that these appeals are taken.
The appellants complain of the action of the trial court in directing a verdict for the defendant, claiming that a prima facie case was made which should have been submitted to the jury. Under these conditions we can only look to the plaintiffs' evidence to see whether there was sufficient proof to have justified a judgment in plaintiffs' behalf had judgments been rendered in favor of them. If there is not sufficient evidence to have sustained a judgment in plaintiffs' favor, then the action of the trial court was correct; otherwise, it was erroneous. Fiester v. Drozda, 185 S. W. 748; Perkins v. Kilpatrick, 193 S. W. 876; Bingaman v. Hannah, 270 Mo. 611, 194 S. W. 276.
The same witness says that he noticed the fire about 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
The defendant admitted on cross-examination that his feeling toward Morris was bad, and that in November, 1917, his feelings toward him were not good. We think that, under this evidence, it could not be declared as unreasonable should a jury find that the act complained of was willful. It is true that the defendant testifies that he set the fire out at 8 o'clock in the morning for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Ohio Millers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
... ... as allowed by the court. Beall v. Ingersoll, 203 ... Mo.App. 555; Smith v. Baer, 166 Mo. 392; Kline ... Cloak & Suit Co. v. Morris, 240 S.W. 99; Case v ... Bridge & Transit Co., 211 S.W. 99; Sweeney v ... Sweeney, 283 S.W. 736; State v. John Gill & Sons ... Co., 220 ... ...
-
Wahl v. Cunningham
... ... 337; Ittner v. St. Louis Exposition Assn., 97 ... Mo. 567; Bank of Oak Ridge v. Duncan, 40 S.W.2d 658; ... Kline Cloak & Suit Co. v. Morris, 293 Mo. 494; ... Barnes v. Barnes, 282 Ill. 593; Ely v ... King-Richardson Co., 265 Ill. 148; 1 R. C. L. 222; 10 R ... C. L. pp. 391, 508, ... ...
- Morris v. Mattingly