Webster v. United States Railroad Administration, No. 22170.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | Reeves |
| Citation | 234 S.W. 790 |
| Parties | WEBSTER v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION et al. |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 22170. |
v.
UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION et al.
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.
Action by B. A. Webster against the United States Railroad Administration and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Transferred to Court of Appeals.
Daniel Upthegrove and John R. Turney, both of St. Louis, and Wammack & Welborn, of Bloomfield, for appellants.
Valentine Perkins, of Lilbourn, for respondent.
[234 S.W. 791]
REEVES, C.
This is an action for damages for the loss of a horse occasioned by its falling through a trestle of the defendant railway company. The suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace upon a petition alleging the ownership of a horse valued at $200; that it went upon the right of way of defendant railroad at a place where, under the law, the railroad should have been fenced and fell through a trestle, injuring it so that it had to be killed. Appellants filed no formal pleadings.
The negligence complained of was the failure to fence the right of way as required by statute.
Judgment by default in the justice court; an appeal to the circuit court, where, waiving a jury, the cause was submitted to the court upon the following agreed statement of facts:
"Parties in the above cause agreed that the facts in said cause are as follows: That plaintiff was the owner of the brown horse mentioned in the petition herein, of the value of $200; that on August 4, 1918, defendants operated a line of railroad through Lewis township, New Madrid county, Mo., and that on said day, at a place in said township where, under section 3145, R. S. Missouri 1909, said railroad was required to be fenced and was not fenced, the said horse went upon said railroad track and fell through a trestle in defendants' railroad, and so crippled and injured itself that it was valueless and had to be killed; that said trestle was very long, several feet above the ground, as alleged in the petition, and that the right of way at said place has never at any time been fenced; that said animal was not frightened or struck by any locomotive or train."
At the beginning of the trial defendants objected to the introduction of any testimony upon the grounds: First, that the petition did not state a cause of action; and, second, that if sections 3145 and 3146, R. S. 1909, now sections 9948 and 9949, R. S. 1919, should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tomlinson, 38706
...R.S. 1939; State v. Hodges, 237 S.W. 1000; State v. Akins, 242 S.W. 660; State v. Haberston, 51 S.W.2d 553, 330 Mo. 799; State v. Hodges, 234 S.W. 790; State v. Batey, 67 S.W.2d 450; State v. Bishop, 231 Mo. 411, 133 S.W. 33; State v. Lovett, 147 S.W. 484, 243 Mo. 510. OPINION Tipton, J. [3......
-
State v. Burton, 29557
...State v. Muir, 186 S.W. 1047; State v. McGrath, 228 Mo. 422; State v. Siegel, 265 Mo. 239; State v. Baird, 271 Mo. 13; State v. Hodges, 234 S.W. 790; State v. Bennett, 297 Mo. 190. But see obiter dicta in State v. Cardwell, 312 Mo. 145. The dicta in the Cardwell case were evidently intended......
-
The State v. Barker
...of the statute and is sufficient. Sec. 3312, R.S. 1919; State v. Swearengin, 234 Mo. 554; State v. Jones, 225 S.W. 899; State v. Hodges, 234 S.W. 790; State v. Hodges, 237 S.W. 1000; State v. Huffman, 238 S.W. 435; State v. Akers, 242 S.W. 660. (2) The giving of an instruction which treats ......
-
State v. Burton, 29557.
...State v. Muir, 186 S.W. 1047; State v. McGrath, 228 Mo. 422; State v. Siegel, 265 Mo. 239; State v. Baird, 271 Mo. 13; State v. Hodges, 234 S.W. 790; State v. Bennett, 297 Mo. 190. But see obiter dicta in State v. Cardwell, 312 Mo. 145. The dicta in the Cardwell case were evidently intended......
-
State v. Tomlinson, 38706
...R.S. 1939; State v. Hodges, 237 S.W. 1000; State v. Akins, 242 S.W. 660; State v. Haberston, 51 S.W.2d 553, 330 Mo. 799; State v. Hodges, 234 S.W. 790; State v. Batey, 67 S.W.2d 450; State v. Bishop, 231 Mo. 411, 133 S.W. 33; State v. Lovett, 147 S.W. 484, 243 Mo. 510. OPINION Tipton, J. [3......
-
State v. Burton, 29557
...State v. Muir, 186 S.W. 1047; State v. McGrath, 228 Mo. 422; State v. Siegel, 265 Mo. 239; State v. Baird, 271 Mo. 13; State v. Hodges, 234 S.W. 790; State v. Bennett, 297 Mo. 190. But see obiter dicta in State v. Cardwell, 312 Mo. 145. The dicta in the Cardwell case were evidently intended......
-
The State v. Barker
...of the statute and is sufficient. Sec. 3312, R.S. 1919; State v. Swearengin, 234 Mo. 554; State v. Jones, 225 S.W. 899; State v. Hodges, 234 S.W. 790; State v. Hodges, 237 S.W. 1000; State v. Huffman, 238 S.W. 435; State v. Akers, 242 S.W. 660. (2) The giving of an instruction which treats ......
-
State v. Burton, 29557.
...State v. Muir, 186 S.W. 1047; State v. McGrath, 228 Mo. 422; State v. Siegel, 265 Mo. 239; State v. Baird, 271 Mo. 13; State v. Hodges, 234 S.W. 790; State v. Bennett, 297 Mo. 190. But see obiter dicta in State v. Cardwell, 312 Mo. 145. The dicta in the Cardwell case were evidently intended......