Woods v. Campbell

• Citation: 110 Mo. 572,19 S.W. 813
• Parties: WOODS et al. v. CAMPBELL et al. (No. 5,272.)
• Decision Date: 06 June 1892
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

19 S.W. 813

110 Mo. 572

WOODS et al. v. CAMPBELL et al. (No. 5,272.)

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 6, 1892.

FERRIES — ACTION FOR INTERFERING WITH PRIVILEGES — EVIDENCE.

In an action against an unlicensed ferryman for a violation of plaintiffs' exclusive ferry privilege, the licenses having been lost, to prove their contents plaintiffs were permitted to introduce similar licenses covering other dates, the general ferry ordinance authorizing grants of licenses by special ordinance, and parol evidence that during the time sued for plaintiffs held licenses, one issued by the city marshal and one by the city register; but there was no evidence that such licenses were authorized by special ordinance. Held, that the evidence failed to show that plaintiffs had the franchise claimed by the complaint.

In banc. Appeal from Cape Girardeau court of common pleas; MAURICE CRAMER, Judge.

Action by William E. Woods and another against James T. Campbell and another to recover damages for operating a ferry in violation of plaintiffs' ferry privilege. Plaintiffs had judgment, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Geo. D. Reynolds, for appellants. J. B. Dennis, for respondents.

BRACE, J.

This is an action for damages against the defendants for intruding upon the line of an exclusive ferry franchise claimed to have been granted to the plaintiff Richard Carroll by the city of Cape Girardeau by ordinance numbered 411 of said city, and is the same franchise passed upon in Carroll v. Campbell, 17 S. W. Rep. 884, and in Same v. Same, (5,271,) 19 S. W. Rep. 809, in an opinion handed down at this delivery. The issues in the latter case and in the one in hand are precisely the same, except that in the former the damage claimed was for an intrusion between 20th day of December, 1885, and the 17th of May, 1886, and the present is for an intrusion between the 18th day of October, 1886, and the 3d of May, 1887. The same legal questions are raised in this as in the former case, and are there disposed of. In this opinion it will only be necessary to notice one additional point, arising from the difference in the time charged for. To sustain the issue upon the part of plaintiffs, two licenses to Richard Carroll were introduced, issued under said special ordinance granting the ferry privilege to him, one dated September 14, 1885, and one dated March 15, 1886, each for the period of six months from the date thereof, and neither covering the time sued for. No other license was offered...