Seibert v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1880 |
| Citation | 72 Mo. 565 |
| Parties | SEIBERT v. THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court.--HON. JOHN T. REDD, Judge.
REVERSED.
John Montgomery, Jr., for appellant, cited Lafferty v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 44 Mo. 292; Hughes v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 66 Mo. 326; Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. McBrown, 46 Ind. 229; Ohio, etc., Ry. Co. v. Cole, 41 Ind. 331; Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Smith, 58 Ind. 576; B. & P. Ry. Co. v. Thomas, 60 Ind. 107; 1 Thompson on Neg., (1 Ed.) p. 531, § 28; A., T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Jones, 20 Kas. 529.
This was an action brought in 1877 under the 43rd section of the railroad corporation law, (R. S., § 809,) to recover double the value of a horse belonging to plaintiff, alleged to have been run against and killed by the engines and cars of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway. The plaintiff's testimony tended to establish the allegations of his petition. The defendant's testimony, on the other hand, tended to show that the horse was not struck by the engine or cars, but that it ran ahead of a moving train and jumped into a certain trestle supporting defendant's track, and in being taken out by defendant's servants, by means of ropes attached to the engine, was killed. The court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff, even though they should believe from the evidence that the horse was not struck by the engine or cars, but was killed by the servants of the defendant in their attempt to remove it from the trestle. It was decided by this court in the case of Lafferty v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 44 Mo. 291, that the injuries contemplated by the 43rd section of the railroad law are such only as result from a direct or actual collision of the engines or cars, with the animal injured. Hughes v. Railroad Co., 66 Mo. 325. The instruction of the circuit court not being in conformity with this decision, is, therefore, erroneous. The plaintiff can, undoubtedly, recover in a proper action for any injury to his horse, negligently inflicted by the servants of the defendant, but he cannot maintain an action under the 43rd section of the railroad law for double damages, unless the injury was the result of actual collision, occasioned by a failure to fence as required by that section. The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eaton v. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway Company
...Railroad, 44 Mo. 290; Hesse v. Railroad, 36 Mo.App. 163; Lindsay v. Railroad, 36 Mo.App. 51; Gilbert v. Railway, 23 Mo.App. 65; Seibert v. Railway, 72 Mo. 565; Colbert Railway, 78 Mo.App. 176. (2) The statutes of Missouri requiring fencing were adopted in the exercise of the police power fo......
-
Ingalsbe v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
...and had proven that negligence, a different question would have been present and a different result would have been reached. In Seibert v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 565, the case was reversed because the plaintiff recovered double damages for failure to fence under an instruction that this was allow......
-
Morrison v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co.
...was done by defendant's engines or cars. An actual collision with defendant's engine was necessary to sustain such action. Seibert v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 565; Railroad Packwood, 7 Am. & Eng. Ry. Cases, 584; Railroad v. McMillen, 37 Ohio St. 554; Young v. Wilson, 24 Miss. 694; Railroad v. Talbo......
-
Foster v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
... ... Railroad, 44 Mo. 291; ... Hughes v. Railroad, 66 Mo. 325; Seibert" v ... Railroad, 72 Mo. 565; Halferty v. Railroad, 82 Mo. 90 ... \xC2" ... organized and chartered under the laws of Missouri. And is ... now, and for a long time since has been, running and ... ...