Ring v. Mississippi River Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1874
• Citation: 57 Mo. 496
• Parties: EDWARD RING, Plaintiff in Error, v. MISSISSIPPI RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

57 Mo. 496

EDWARD RING, Plaintiff in Error,

v.MISSISSIPPI RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1874.

Error to Louisiana Court of Common Pleas.

Sharp & Broadhead, for Plaintiff in Error: cited in argument, Walther vs. Warner, 25 Mo., 277; Evans vs. Haefner, 29 Mo., 141.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff brought his suit for damages against the defendant, for taking possession of and appropriating a strip of ground belonging to him, for the construction of a road track and approaches to their bridge.

The answer, among other things, set up that in pursuance of authority the defendant entered upon the premises for the purpose of appropriating the ground to build a track connecting the bridge with the railroad; that it took steps to have the same condemned by a proceeding duly instituted; that commissioners were appointed to view the premises and ascertain the amount of damages arising from the location and construction of the approach to the bridge, and that they made their report, which was approved by the Circuit Court, and judgment was rendered against the defendant thereon; that the defendant took an appeal to the Supreme Court, and gave an appeal bond in double the amount of the judgment; that the appeal was taken prior to the institution of this suit, and was still pending, and that by reason of the premises the plaintiff was fully indemnified against the supposed wrong or injury done by the defendant, and should, therefore, not be permitted to maintain his action.

The plaintiff filed his motion to strike out this portion of defendant's answer, because it constituted no legal defense, which motion was overruled. Plaintiff then took a non-suit, and after an unsuccessful effort to set the same aside, he sued out his writ of error to this court.

We suppose that the ground upon which the court below based its judgment was, that the appeal bond which the defendant gave in the proceedings for condemnation was a sufficient indemnity, and might be regarded as a compensation. But we think this is a mistaken view.

The appeal bond is not a bond for the payment of damages, but it is an obligation conditioned for the prosecution of the appeal with effect, and if the appeal is prosecuted with effect, and the case is reversed for some error of law, then the conditions are avoided, and the liability thereon ceases.

The principle is too well settled to require any argument or citation of...