Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Cox v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad

Cox v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad

74 S.W. 854, 174 Mo. 588, 1903 Mo. LEXIS 316
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMay 19, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 74 S.W. 854 (Cox v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cox v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad, 74 S.W. 854, 174 Mo. 588, 1903 Mo. LEXIS 316 (Mo. 1903).

Opinion

BURGESS, J.

This is an action to recover damages done to plaintiff’s crops by water, in the years 1896 and 1897, by reason of the failure of the defendant company to construct and maintain ditches and drains along the sides of its roadbed as required'by section 810, Revised Statutes 1879, amended by the Act of 1883. [Laws 1883, p. 50; R. S. 1889, sec. 2614.]

The answer of the defendant set up the incorporation of the Kansas City, Galveston & Lake Superior Railroad Company; the change of its name to the Kansas City & Cameron Railroad Company; its acquisition of the title to the right of way through the land described in the petition in 1860; the construction of its roadbed through said lands in 1860 on a raised bed or embankment; that said railroad company shortly after began the operation of its railroad, and continued to maintain said roadbed, and to operate its trains till the year 1870, when it was consolidated with, and became a part of the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad [595]*595Company-; that the defendant company succeeded to all the property,’ rights, privileges, franchises and immunities of the Kansas City & Cameron Eailroad Company, took possession of said right of way, roadbed and property, and has ever since owned, held, possessed, operated, maintained and enjoyed said railroad embankment as originally constructed by the Kansas City & Cameron Eailroad Company. Said answer further set up a general denial of all the allegations of the petition not expressly admitted, and pleaded a prescriptive right to maintain said roadbed in the form and condition in which it was originally constructed by said Kansas City & Cameron Eailroad Company. The defendant in its answer further stated that the embankment of said roadbed as originally constructed was a permanent structure; that any damages resulting- from its construction accrued at the time it was constructed, and belonged to the persons then owing the lands, and the defendant pleads the statute of limitation of ten years in bar of said action.

On motion of plaintiff the court struck out of the said answer the plea of prescriptive right to maintain said embankment, and the plea of the statute of limitations, to which ruling the defendant saved exception.

The reply was a general denial.

The facts are, that the land upon which the crops in question were grown is bottom land, and that portion of it cultivated by plaintiff, as appears from the. accompanying map, lies between the railroad track and

[596]*596

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gluck v. Terminal Railroad
702 S.W.2d 476 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1986)
Formicove, Inc. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.
673 P.2d 469 (Montana Supreme Court, 1983)
Clark v. City of Springfield
241 S.W.2d 100 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1951)
Young v. Moore
236 S.W.2d 740 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1951)
White v. Wabash Railroad Co.
207 S.W.2d 505 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1947)
Anderson v. Inter-River Drainage & Levee District
274 S.W. 448 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
Brown v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.
248 S.W. 12 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1923)
Murphy v. St. Louis, San Francisco Railroad
226 S.W. 637 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)
Hayes v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
162 S.W. 266 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Greer v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
158 S.W. 740 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Thoele v. Marvin Planing Mill Co.
148 S.W. 413 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Grandstaff v. Bland
148 S.W. 139 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Emery v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
129 S.W. 44 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Bowen v. Kansas City
126 S.W. 790 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Ranney v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
119 S.W. 484 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Beauchamp v. Taylor
111 S.W. 609 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
Webb v. Carter
98 S.W. 776 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Williamson v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
90 S.W. 401 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Sluder v. St. Louis Transit Co.
88 S.W. 648 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 S.W. 854, 174 Mo. 588, 1903 Mo. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-hannibal-st-joseph-railroad-mo-1903.