Spealman v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1880 |
| Citation | Spealman v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 71 Mo. 434 (Mo. 1880) |
| Parties | SPEALMAN v. THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court.--HON. NOAH M. GIVAN, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
The plaintiff's cause of action arose on the 11th day of June, 1877.
Thos. J. Portis and E. A. Andrews for appellant, in addition to other points presented in an elaborate brief, called special attention to the difference between section 5, article 9, constitution of 1865, which was in force when the case of Barnett v. A. & P. R. R. Co., 68 Mo. 56, arose, and section 8, article 11, constitution of 1875, which was in force when the present case arose, and argued that that case was not decisive of the question involved in this, citing especially Dutton v. Fowler, 27 Wis. 427.
The main question presented in this case is, whether section 43 of the railroad corporation act, which makes such a corporation liable for double damages for stock killed by it in consequence of the failure of the company to erect and maintain fences along the line of its road, as therein required, is in violation either of the constitution of the State, or the United States. It is claimed on the part of defendant that said section is obnoxious to and violative of article 5 of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, which declares that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;” and also of article 14, which provides that “no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” In the case of Barnett v. A. & P. R. R. Co., 68 Mo. 56, it was contended that said section 43 was in conflict with article 2, section 30, of the constitution of the State, which is an exact copy of article 5 of the constitution of the United...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Shaffer ex rel. Shaffer v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, Chicago
... ... , ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY and THOMAS TORPEY, Appellants Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division August 15, 1923 ... Appeal ... from Clinton Circuit Court. -- Hon. A. M. Tibbels, Judge ... 4217, Revised Statutes 1919, does not ... violate Constitution of Missouri, art. XI, sec. 8 ... Barnett v. Railroad Co., 68 Mo. 64; Spealman v ... Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 71 Mo. 434; Humes v. Mo. Pac. Ry ... Co., 82 Mo. 221. (5) Since the Rock Island is liable, ... the Burlington is ... ...
-
Moffett v. Commerce Trust Co.
... ... C. Howard, and William H. Kopp No. 39509 Supreme Court of Missouri" February 11, 1946 ... ... Rehearing Denied April 8, 1946 ... \xC2" ... 463; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Levy, 17 Mo.App. 501; ... Bennett v. Lohman, 292 Mo. 477; Pacific Lime & Gypsum Co. v. Mo. Bridge & Iron Co., 286 Mo. 112, 226 ... S.W. 853; Pickering v. Tel ... rel. v. Warner, 197 Mo. 650; Barnett v. A. & P ... Railroad Co., 68 Mo. 56; Spealman v. Mo. Pac. Ry ... Co., 71 Mo. 434; Humes v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 82 ... Mo. 221; Fiedler v ... ...
-
Coffman v. Saline Valley Railroad Company
...in the fence under the fencing statute. Sec. 3145, R. S. Mo. 1909; Barnett v. Railroad, 68 Mo. 62; Cooley's Con. Lim. 578; Spealman v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 434; Humes v. Railroad, 82 Mo. 221; Phillips Railroad, 86 Mo. 540; Hines v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 629; Perkins v. Railroad, 103 Mo. 57; Briggs v......
-
Stone v. Wandling
...the court to double the damages and the rental value found by the jury is not unconstitutional. Barnett v. Railroad, 68 Mo. 56; Spealman v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 434; Humes Railroad, 82 Mo. 221; Keller v. Insurance Co., 198 Mo. 440; Barker v. Insurance Co., 269 Mo. 21; Fidelity Mutual Life Assn.......