Sanders v. St. Louis & N. O. Anchor Line

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtBarclay
Citation10 S.W. 595,97 Mo. 26
Decision Date04 February 1889
PartiesSANDERS et al. v. ST. LOUIS & N. O. ANCHOR LINE.
10 S.W. 595
97 Mo. 26
SANDERS et al.
v.
ST. LOUIS & N. O. ANCHOR LINE.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
February 4, 1889.

STATE AND STATE OFFICERS — BOUNDARIES — CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.

The Missouri statute, (Rev. St. c. 25,) giving damages for injuries resulting in death, controls a case between citizens of Missouri arising from an accident on the Mississippi river, near the Illinois shore, east of the main channel; the act of congress of 1820, authorizing the admission of Missouri, and defining its eastern boundary as the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi river, containing the proviso that "said state shall have concurrent jurisdiction on the river Mississippi * * * so far as the said river shall form a common boundary to the said state and any other state or states * * * bounded by the same, such rivers to be common to both."1

Error to St. Louis circuit court.

[10 S.W. 596]

Suit by Fannie Sanders, with whom is joined her husband, William Sanders, for damages for the drowning of her minor child caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff sued out writ of error.

James P. Dameron and Dyer, Lee & Ellis, for plaintiff in error. Given Campbell, for defendant in error.

BARCLAY, J.


The petition in this action alleges that the minor son of one of plaintiffs was drowned while in defendant's employ as a deck-hand on one of its steamboats on the Mississippi river between the states of Illinois and Missouri, east of the main channel, while the boat was at the Illinois shore; that plaintiffs then were, and now are, citizens of this state, and defendant is a Missouri corporation, with its chief office in St. Louis; that the boat was engaged in navigating the river as a carrier of freight and passengers; and that the death complained of was caused by certain negligence on the part of defendant.

It is conceded that the petition is otherwise sufficient if the place of injury is governed by Missouri laws. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the petition. Plaintiffs have brought the case here for review by writ of error.

The decisive question presented is whether our statute giving damages for injuries resulting in death (Rev. St. c. 25) controls a case between citizens of this state arising from facts occurring on the Mississippi near the Illinois shore, east of the main channel. The act of congress of April 18, 1818, for the admission of Illinois into the Union, defined its western boundary as "the middle of the Mississippi river," and provided that the state should have concurrent jurisdiction thereon with any state or states to be formed west thereof so far as the river formed the common boundary. 3 St. at Large, 428. Afterwards the same intention was expressed with greater clearness in the act of 1820, authorizing the admission of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • State v. Hamey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 29, 1902
    ...that the legislature intended to express the meaning previously put upon them. McNichol v. Agency, 74 Mo. 457; Saunders v. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. 26, 10 S. W. 595, 3 L. R. A. 390. And especially is this so when revisions of the laws and constitutions have intervened, and the language construed......
  • Rathjen v. Reorganized School Dist. R-II of Shelby County, R-II
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 14, 1955
    ...case cited by plaintiffs is also a classic example of the application of the rule. In the case of Sanders v. St. Louis & N. O. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. 26, 10 S.W. 595, 3 L.R.A. 390, the court was concerned with the construction of Art. I, Sec. 1, of the 1875 Constitution, which provided that 'T......
  • Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, 21739
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 18, 1921
    ...Jenkins v. Ewing, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 456, 12 Corpus Juris, 706, and cases cited under note 10; Saunders v. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. l. c. 30, 31, 10 S.W. 595, 3 L. R. A. 390; Ex Parte Durbin, 102 Mo. l. c. 103, 14 S.W. 821; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Powers, 201, U.S. 245, 26 S.Ct. 459, 50 L.Ed......
  • Gude v. Weick Undertaking Co., No. 27600.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 5, 1929
    ...is assumed to have been likewise adopted. Camp v. Wabash, 68 S.W. 96; Handlin v. Morgan Co., 57 Mo. 116; Sanders v. Anchor Line, 10 S.W. 595; State ex inf. v. Mo. Ath. Club, 170 S.W. 904. (3) Laws 1921 (1st Ex. Sess.) page 91, sec. 19, providing that automobile drivers must exercise the hig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • State v. Hamey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 29, 1902
    ...that the legislature intended to express the meaning previously put upon them. McNichol v. Agency, 74 Mo. 457; Saunders v. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. 26, 10 S. W. 595, 3 L. R. A. 390. And especially is this so when revisions of the laws and constitutions have intervened, and the language construed......
  • Rathjen v. Reorganized School Dist. R-II of Shelby County, R-II
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 14, 1955
    ...case cited by plaintiffs is also a classic example of the application of the rule. In the case of Sanders v. St. Louis & N. O. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. 26, 10 S.W. 595, 3 L.R.A. 390, the court was concerned with the construction of Art. I, Sec. 1, of the 1875 Constitution, which provided that 'T......
  • Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, 21739
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 18, 1921
    ...Jenkins v. Ewing, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 456, 12 Corpus Juris, 706, and cases cited under note 10; Saunders v. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. l. c. 30, 31, 10 S.W. 595, 3 L. R. A. 390; Ex Parte Durbin, 102 Mo. l. c. 103, 14 S.W. 821; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Powers, 201, U.S. 245, 26 S.Ct. 459, 50 L.Ed......
  • Gude v. Weick Undertaking Co., No. 27600.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 5, 1929
    ...is assumed to have been likewise adopted. Camp v. Wabash, 68 S.W. 96; Handlin v. Morgan Co., 57 Mo. 116; Sanders v. Anchor Line, 10 S.W. 595; State ex inf. v. Mo. Ath. Club, 170 S.W. 904. (3) Laws 1921 (1st Ex. Sess.) page 91, sec. 19, providing that automobile drivers must exercise the hig......
  • 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