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

• Decision Date: 04 February 1889
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: SANDERS 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.

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 Missouri. It defined the eastern boundary of the state as "down and following the course of the Mississippi river, in the middle of the main channel thereof," provided that "said state shall have concurrent jurisdiction on the river Mississippi, and every other river bordering on said state, so far as the said rivers shall form a common boundary to the said state, and any other state or states now or hereafter to be formed and bounded by the same, such rivers to be common to both; and that the river Mississippi and the navigable rivers and waters leading to the same shall be common highways and forever free," etc. 3 St. at Large, 545. Missouri accepted the boundary thus defined, and adopted the proviso regarding concurrent...