Van Cleave v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 12 February 1901
• Parties: VAN CLEAVE v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

60 S.W. 1091

159 Mo. 574

VAN CLEAVE v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

February 12, 1901.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — NEGLIGENCE — PLEADING — COMPLAINT BEFORE JUSTICES — GENERALITY — OBJECTION CURED BY VERDICT.

1. Where a complaint against a city, filed before a justice, alleged that a horse was injured while crossing a roadway negligently constructed by the defendant city across certain street-railway tracks, such complaint was sufficient to reasonably advise the defendant of the nature of the claim, and was good, in absence of a motion to make more definite.

2. Where a complaint filed before a justice alleged defendant's negligence in very general terms, but the case went to trial, and judgment in the justice court, and again in the circuit court, objection to the generality of the complaint would not be heard on appeal, since the defect was cured by verdict and judgment.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; S. P. Spencer, Judge.

Action by J. W. Van Cleave against the city of St. Louis and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff and other defendants, the city of St. Louis appeals. Affirmed.

B. Schnurmacher and Alex. Nicholson, for appellant. W. A. Alderson, for respondent.

ROBINSON, J.

This action was originally begun before a justice of the peace against the city of St. Louis, the Lindell Railway Company, Philip F. Stifel, and Henry Ruckert upon the following petition or statement: "The plaintiff, complaining of the defendants, alleges that on or about the 22d day of August, 1897, he was the owner of a mare, which, through the negligence and carelessness of the defendants, was so injured and ruined that said animal was entirely lost to the plaintiff; that said animal was injured in the city of St. Louis, on Vandeventer avenue, just north of Washington avenue, and between said Washington avenue and Delmar avenue, and in front of the livery stable on the west side of said Vandeventer avenue, between said thoroughfares, said livery stable being known and called the `West End Livery Stable'; that said animal was injured while on said Vandeventer avenue at said point, and while crossing a roadway constructed by the defendants across the street-railway tracks at said point; that, by reason of said negligence and carelessness of the defendants, the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $300." At the trial before the justice, a judgment was entered against the defendant city of St. Louis, and in favor of the other defendants, and the city of St. Louis appealed the case to the circuit court, where, upon a trial anew in that court, judgment was again rendered against it for the sum of $300, and by the same defendant the case has been brought here on appeal.

But one question is raised by appellant, and that is as to the sufficiency of the statement filed by plaintiff with the justice as his cause of action. What is or what is not a sufficient statement of a cause of action before a justice of the peace has been the source of frequent adjudication in this court. If a comparison of our various adjudications upon the different statements filed before justices of the peace, that from time to time have been brought before us for determination, has furnished justification for the suggestion that those adjudications have not at all times been in strict harmony, that want of harmony has not been so much the result of the want of a...