Seaton v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co.
Decision Date | 28 February 1874 |
Citation | 55 Mo. 416 |
Parties | THOMAS SEATON, Respondent v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.
J. H. Shanklin and M. A. Low, for Appellant.
I. Section 43 is penal (Sedgw. Const. Law, 41), and the action should have gone in name of the State. (Trice vs. Han. &. St. Jo. R. R. Co., 49 Mo., 438; Iba vs. Han. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 45 Mo., 469.)
William Henry, for Respondent.
I. The damages given by § 43 of the Railroad Act (Wagn. Stat., 310), although in the nature of a penalty, are given to the owner of the cattle injured or killed.
II. Section 42 is directory, not mandatory. (State to use, etc. vs. Hann. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 51 Mo., 532.)
This was an action commenced before a Justice of the Peace, under § 43, Wagn. Stat., 310, for double damages for killing several hogs by defendant.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment before the justice, and the defendant took an appeal to the Circuit Court, when the plaintiff again had judgment, and the defendant appealed to this court, which reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.
The case was again tried before the Circuit Court, and again resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has again appealed to this court.
On the trial in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove his case as stated, and also evidence of the corporate existence of the defendant. The defendant objected to the character of the evidence given to establish its corporate existence, but it need not be recited, as under the view we take, it was wholly unnecessary. The defendant had appeared from the commencement of the suit by its attorney, and was all the time in court, as a corporate entity, under the name by which it had been sued; and that was sufficient without any proof of its corporate existence. If a corporation appears to a suit, it cannot deny its own existence. It either exists or is a non-entity, and if it be a non-entity the whole proceedings would be coram non judice and utterly void. When a corporation brings suit, the defendant may deny it its legal existence, and thus render it necessary for its existence to be proven. But when the corporation appears as defendant, such appearance is conclusive evidence of its legal existence for the purposes of the pending case.
The objection is urged here, that this suit ought to have been brought in the name of the State, under Sec. 42, 1st Wagn. Stat., 310, which required all penalties imposed by that chapter to be sued for in the name of the State. But that section refers to penalties due to the State and not to punitive damages, which parties are entitled to recover under section 43 of the same chapter. The owners of stock...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bruun v. Katz Drug Co.
... ... Short Line Ry. Co., 52 ... Mo.App. 439; Seaton v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 55 ... Mo. 416. (2) ... ...
-
State ex rel. McDowell v. Libby
... ... Ry. Co., 52 Mo.App. 439; Seaton v. C., R. I. & P ... Ry. Co., 55 Mo. 416; 97 ... ...
-
Eubank v. City of Edina
...In this case the defendant having appeared and answered is estopped to deny its own existence. Hudson v. Railroad, 53 Mo. 525; Seaton v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 416; Whitehouse v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 523; Smith v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 526; Sappington v. Railroad, 14 Mo. App. 86; Dillon on Mun. Corp. [2 E......
-
Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Lightheiser
...from denying the same. Adams Ex. Co. v. Hill, 43 Ind. 157, 162;Ohio Oil Co. v. Detamore, 165 Ind. 243, 247, 73 N. E. 906;Seaton v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 55 Mo. 416;Chicago & Alton Ry. Co. v. Glenny, 175 Ill. 238, 51 N. E. 896;Perris Irr. Dist. v. Thompson, 116 Fed. 832, 54 C. C. A. 336;Ga......