Jones v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jones v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad

101 S.W. 615, 124 Mo. App. 246, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 206

DecidedApril 2, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.W. 615 (Jones v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad) 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

Jones v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad, 101 S.W. 615, 124 Mo. App. 246, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 206 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODE, J.

-This action was instituted before a justice of the peace to recover double damages for th'e loss of a colt belonging to plaintiff and killed by one of defendant’s engines. The colt is alleged to have gone on defendant’s railroad on account of the defective fences along the right of way and an insufficient cattle-guard. The evidence supported this statement. It was shown that on account of a bad cattle-guard the colt was enabled to get within the enclosed right of way where it was struck and killed. The case was quite fully instructed and, we think, correctly. All the- charges to the jury asked by defendant were given, except one directing a verdict in its favor. Practically the only complaint of the court’s ruling is that the question of whether the ■colt was killed in the township where the suit was originally instituted before the justice of the peace, or in an adjoining township, was not left to the jury. The evidence is conclusive that the animal was killed in an adjacent township. This was shown by the testimony of -witnesses, speaking without objection, of the general repute on the subject, by the positive testimony of the clerk of the county and by a. map prepared by the county surveyor. There was no evidence to the contrary and it does not ■appear to us that the judgment ought to be reversed because the court did not make an issue on that matter for the jury, particularly as the defendant requested no instructions on the subject, but in the instructions tendered by it, raised issues only as to whether there were proper fences and cattle-guards where the animal entered the right of way and whether or not it was killed by being struck by a locomotive.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

GOODE, J.

-This action was instituted before a justice of the peace to recover double damages for th'e loss of a colt belonging to plaintiff and killed by one of defendant’s engines. The colt is alleged to have gone on defendant’s railroad on account of the defective fences along the right of way and an insufficient cattle-guard. The evidence supported this statement. It was shown that on account of a bad cattle-guard the colt was enabled to get within the enclosed right of way where it was struck and killed. The case was quite fully instructed and, we think, correctly. All the- charges to the jury asked by defendant were given, except one directing a verdict in its favor. Practically the only complaint of the court’s ruling is that the question of whether the ■colt was killed in the township where the suit was originally instituted before the justice of the peace, or in an adjoining township, was not left to the jury. The evidence is conclusive that the animal was killed in an adjacent township. This was shown by the testimony of -witnesses, speaking without objection, of the general repute on the subject, by the positive testimony of the clerk of the county and by a. map prepared by the county surveyor. There was no evidence to the contrary and it does not ■appear to us that the judgment ought to be reversed because the court did not make an issue on that matter for the jury, particularly as the defendant requested no instructions on the subject, but in the instructions tendered by it, raised issues only as to whether there were proper fences and cattle-guards where the animal entered the right of way and whether or not it was killed by being struck by a locomotive.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.W. 615, 124 Mo. App. 246, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-st-louis-san-francisco-railroad-moctapp-1907.