State ex rel. Sch. Fund of Gentry Cnty. v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
Citation | 83 Mo. 144 |
Parties | THE STATE to the use of THE SCHOOL FUND OF GENTRY COUNTY v. THE WABASH, ST. LOUIS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Gentry Circuit Court.--HON. JOHN C. HOWELL, Judge.
REVERSED.
H. S. Priest for appellant.
The statement does not contain facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action. Parish v. R. R., 63 Mo. 286; Haworth v. Ormerod, 6 Q. B. 307; Rex v. Shaw, 6 East 518; Potter's Dwarris Stats., p. 246; Strong v. Stibbins, 5 Cowen, 211; Palmer v. Conley, 4 Denio 375; The Enterprise 1 Paine 32; Hubbard v. Johnston, 3 Taunt. 177; Ingersoll v. Skinner, 1 Denio 540; State v. Brown,8 Mo. 211; Neals v. State, 10 Mo. 498; State v. Haden, 15 Mo. 447; State v. Lisles, 58 Mo. 359. The act of the legislature of 1881 is unconstitutional, both as to the constitution of this state and of the United States. ( a.) It is not a legitimate exercise of the power of eminent domain. Const. 1875 (Mo.) sec. 20, Art. 2; St. Louis Co. v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175; Const. 1875 (Mo.) sec. 21, Art. 2; Const. 1875 (Mo.) sec. 4, Art. 12; Leslie v. City of St. Louis, 47 Mo. 477; Judge Field in Munn v. Ill., 94 U. S. 141; Pampelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 177; State ex rel. v. Greer, 78 Mo. 188. ( b.) It is not an exercise of the police power. Judge Field in Munn v. Ill., supra; Const. 1875 (Mo.) sec. 5, Art. 12; Cooley, Const. Lim. (2d Ed.) 706; Const. 1875 (Mo.) sec. 14, Art. 12; State ex rel. v. Greer, 78 Mo. 188; State v. Noyes, 47 Me. 211; Com'rs v. R. R., 63 Me. 274.
J. W. Witten, Martin & Hardin and Porter & Waller for respondent.
The same completeness requisite in a petition in the circuit court has never been required in an action before a justice of the peace. It is sufficient if the statement in such action advise the party of the nature of the claim and be sufficiently specific to be a bar to another action. Razor v. R. R., 73 Mo. 471; Key v. R. R., 73 Mo. 475; Norton v. R. R., 48 Mo. 387; Iba v. R. R., 45 Mo. 470. The act of the legislature of March 25th, 1881, is constitutional and a proper exercise of the police power. Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (3d Ed.) 575, and note 1, p. 574; Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington Railroad Company, 27th Vt. 140; Beer v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. Rep. 25; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. Rep. 113; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518-629; Sloan et al. v. Pa. Railroad Co., 61 Mo. 24; Peters v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain Railroad Company, 23 Mo. 107; Commissioners et al. v. Holyoke Water Power Company, 104 Mass. 446; Hegeman v. Western RailroadCompany, 16 Barb. 353. The court will not pronounce an act of the legislature void for any supposed injustice, if it be upon a subject matter within the scope of legislative authority, when the provisions of the law are general. Armington v. The Town of Barnet et al., 15 Vermont, p. 745, and reported in vol. 40, American Decisions, p. 705.
The plaintiff filed the following statement before a justice of the peace of Gentry county as her cause of action: Plaintiff states that the defendant is a railroad corporation in the state of Missouri, organized under and by virtue of the statutes of said state, and is engaged in the transportation of passengers and property. That said railroad crosses the St. Joseph and Des Moines Railroad, a corporation under and by virtue of the statutes of said state, near Darlington, Gentry county, Mo., upon the same grade. That the character of the land at said crossing will admit of the erection of a depot thereon. That the defendant, either jointly with the said St. Joseph and Des Moines Railroad Company, or separately, has failed, neglected and refused to erect, build or maintain a depot, passenger house or waiting room at said crossing on the 11th day of July, 1881, as under the statutes in such cases made and provided the defendant was required. Wherefore the plaintiff asks for judgment against the defendant for the sum of twenty-five dollars and costs.
Plaintiff had judgment before the justice, and on defendant's appeal again had judgment from which the defendant has appealed to this court. On the trial defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence on the following grounds: 1. Because the petition, or statement, did not aver facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 2. Because the statute under which the action was commenced is repugnant to the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state.
Plaintiff's cause of action is based upon the following statute: R. S. § 797, Laws, 1881, p. 77.
It will be observed that this is a penal statute. It enjoins upon railroad companies the duty of doing certain things which, if not done, subjects them to the payment of a fixed penalty, and, being penal, it should be strictly construed, and so as not to enlarge the liability it imposes nor allow a recovery under it, unless the party seeking it brings his case strictly within the terms or conditions authorizing it. Parish v. Railroad, 63 Mo. 284. Giving force and effect to this rule we must hold that the first objection to the sufficiency of the statement is well taken. The evident purpose of the statute, in requiring railroad companies carrying passengers to build depots or station houses * * * at all places where they cross each other, was to afford facilities not so much to those living in the immediate vicinity of such crossing, as to the travelling public at large, and to that class of persons travelling on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co.
...31 Am.St.Rep. 477; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., 110 U.S. 667, 4 S.Ct. 185, 28 L.Ed. 291; State v. Wabash, St. L. & R. R. Co., 83 Mo. 144. view of the foregoing authorities, we think it free from doubt that a common carrier may be required to make transfer of frei......
-
State v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
...v. R. R., 70 N. Y. 569. And loss to a railroad is no defense to a petition for a mandamus to compel obedience to such a law. State v. R. Co., 83 Mo. 144, 150; R. R. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 14 Sup. Ct. 437, 38 L. Ed. 269; R. R. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 19 Sup. Ct. 465, 43 L. Ed. 702; R. R.......
-
L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Central Stock Yards Co.
...Am. St. Rep. 477; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct. 185, 28 L. Ed. 291; State v. Wabash, St L. & R. R. Co., 83 Mo. 144. In view of the foregoing authorities, we think it free from doubt that a common carrier may be required to make transfer o......
-
Wiggins Ferry Company, And Respondent v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, And Respondent
... ... Appeal ... from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Daniel Dillon, ... (2) Wabash ... cars crossed by the Madison County Ferry ... (3) Cars sent across by the Missouri Pacific ... Railroad and other western roads, were ... of the state of Illinois. First. The lex loci contractus ... Vincent, 49 Ill. 33; Pcople ex ... rel. v. Railroad, 55 Ill. 95; Railroad v ... ...