Manuel v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Manuel v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

19 Mo. App. 631, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 283

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 7, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 Mo. App. 631 (Manuel v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.) 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

Manuel v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., 19 Mo. App. 631, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 283 (Mo. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, J.

This is an action begun before a justice of the peace, in Sugar Creek township, Randolph county, to recover the value of a cow killed by defendant.

The statement alleg’ed that the cow was killed in the town of Moberly. Upon a trial de nono, in the Moberly court of common pleas, the evidence showed that she was killed in said town. The fact that the cow was killed in Sugar Creek township was neither alleged nor proved, unless the allegation and proof that she was killed in Moberly were sufficient allegation and proof of that fact.

The statement itself, or the transcript of the justice, must show affirmatively, in such actions as this, that the animal was killed in the township of the justice or the adjoining township. That this is the requirement of our statute has been so repeatedly decided by the supreme court of this state, that it is not necessary to cite authorities in support of the proposition. The respondent seeks to take this case out of that rule upon two grounds : First, because this is an action in tort, for less than one hundred and fifty dollars; second, because the jury and this court could and may infer, from the fact that the cow was killed in the town of Moberly, that she was killed in Sugar Creek township.

I.

In support of his first ground, the respondent cites section 2835, Revised Statutes, and contends that by said section a justice has jurisdiction, irrespective of the township in which an- animal may be killed, in such cases as this, where the amount sued for does not exceed one hundred and fifty dollars. This point has been decided by this court against respondent’s views. Creason v. R. R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 111.

[634]*634II.

From the fact that the cow was killed in Moberly, no inference could nor can be made that she was killed in Sugar Creek township. Neither the transcript showed, nor the statement alleged, nor the proof established that the cow was killed in said township. Following the case of Backenstoe v. JR. R. Co., recently decided by the supreme court upon this very question, we must reverse the judgment herein.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Hall, J.

This is an action begun before a justice of the peace, in Sugar Creek township, Randolph county, to recover the value of a cow killed by defendant.

The statement alleg’ed that the cow was killed in the town of Moberly. Upon a trial de nono, in the Moberly court of common pleas, the evidence showed that she was killed in said town. The fact that the cow was killed in Sugar Creek township was neither alleged nor proved, unless the allegation and proof that she was killed in Moberly were sufficient allegation and proof of that fact.

The statement itself, or the transcript of the justice, must show affirmatively, in such actions as this, that the animal was killed in the township of the justice or the adjoining township. That this is the requirement of our statute has been so repeatedly decided by the supreme court of this state, that it is not necessary to cite authorities in support of the proposition. The respondent seeks to take this case out of that rule upon two grounds : First, because this is an action in tort, for less than one hundred and fifty dollars; second, because the jury and this court could and may infer, from the fact that the cow was killed in the town of Moberly, that she was killed in Sugar Creek township.

I.

In support of his first ground, the respondent cites section 2835, Revised Statutes, and contends that by said section a justice has jurisdiction, irrespective of the township in which an- animal may be killed, in such cases as this, where the amount sued for does not exceed one hundred and fifty dollars. This point has been decided by this court against respondent’s views. Creason v. R. R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 111.

[634]*634II.

From the fact that the cow was killed in Moberly, no inference could nor can be made that she was killed in Sugar Creek township. Neither the transcript showed, nor the statement alleged, nor the proof established that the cow was killed in said township. Following the case of Backenstoe v. JR. R. Co., recently decided by the supreme court upon this very question, we must reverse the judgment herein.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Mo. App. 631, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manuel-v-missouri-pacific-railway-co-moctapp-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack