Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Hurd v. Chappell

Hurd v. Chappell

91 Mo. App. 317, 1902 Mo. App. LEXIS 273
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 6, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 91 Mo. App. 317 (Hurd v. Chappell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hurd v. Chappell, 91 Mo. App. 317, 1902 Mo. App. LEXIS 273 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902).

Opinion

SMITH, P. J.

— This is an action which was brought before a justice of the peace to recover damages under section 1105, Revised Statutes 1899, for the loss of a mare. There [320]*320was a trial in the circuit court resulting in judgment for the plaintiff and from which defendant appealed.

The defendant at the trial, both at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence, interposed a demurrer thereto, which was by the court overruled; and the action of the court in this regard is assigned as error here. The propriety of the action of the court thus called in question must be determined by reference to the evidence presented by the record before us.

It appears therefrom that the defendants operate the K. C. & N. C. railroad, which extends from Kansas City to Pattonsburg, Missouri; that the plaintiff owned a mare which he found on defendant’s right of way with one of her forelegs broken and with other injuries rendering her utterly worthless for any purpose. The place where the mare was found was over a half mile south of the Pattonsburg depot and just north of a trestle. Eighty rods distant north of this trestle was the southern apex of a Y on which the defendant handled its cars and trains of cars at Pattonsburg. Reference to the accompanying plats offered in evidence and marked “A” and “I” will be found useful in arriving at a correct idea of the locus in quo.

The defendant’s depot is thus seen to be at the northeast apex of the Y or triangle and within the limits of the city of Pattonsburg. The evidence discloses further that at the time the plaintiff’s mare was injured the defendant had a lawful fence on the south side of its road extending from Elm street in said city south beyond the trestle where the plaintiff’s mare was found; that there was a like fence extending from south of the trestle along the west side of defendant’s road to the southern apex of the Y and from thence on the west side of the Y to its western apex where it was joined to the Wabash railway tracks; that on the north side of the Y extending from its western apex to the depot is also a like fence to the point where it entered the limits of the city as shown by the plat "A.” It further appears from the last-named plat that there [321]*321is a road or street on tbe western boundary of said city of Pattonsburg which extends south across the several tracks on the north side of the Y and upon the irregular triangle-shaped piece of ground embraced in the Y on which are the defendant’s cattle pens. There were no cattle guards between the apex of the Y and the trestle where the plaintiff’s mare was found.

[0]*0

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

Related

Edmunds v. Salt Lake & L. A. Ry. Co.
196 P. 1019 (Utah Supreme Court, 1921)
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McCall
1915 OK 301 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Creson v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
133 S.W. 57 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Gilpin v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
94 S.W. 869 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Acord v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
87 S.W. 537 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Redmond v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
104 Mo. App. 651 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 Mo. App. 317, 1902 Mo. App. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurd-v-chappell-moctapp-1902.