Mier v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad

56 Mo. App. 655, 1894 Mo. App. LEXIS 129
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 5, 1894
StatusPublished

This text of 56 Mo. App. 655 (Mier v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern 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
Mier v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad, 56 Mo. App. 655, 1894 Mo. App. LEXIS 129 (Mo. Ct. App. 1894).

Opinion

Biggs, J.

— Under the pleadings and evidence the judgment in this case can not be upheld. The action is for double damages under section 2611, Revised Statutes of 1889, for killing a horse, the property of the plaintiff. The petition alleged, and the proof showed, that the animal was killed in Sylvania township in Scott county, whereas the suit was brought in Moreland township in said county. There was no allegation in the complaint, or proof on the trial, that the two townships adjoin.

It has been repeatedly held by this court and the supreme court that the fact, that the animal was killed in the township where the suit is brought, or in an adjoining township, must be averred and proved. It is a jurisdictional fact and is necessary to be averred in order to confer on the justice jurisdiction of the action. [657]*657Wiseman v. Railroad, 30 Mo. App. 516; Kinion v. Railroad, 30 Mo. App. 573; Backenstoe v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 492; Ellis v. Railroad, 83 Mo. 372. Hence the court committed error in overruling defendant’s demurrer to the evidence. We will, however, remand the case, as the defect may possibly be cured by amendment and evidence on another trial. Mitchell v. Railroad, 82 Mo. 106.

The authorities relied on by the plaintiff have no application. The cases treat of jurisdiction of the person. In a transitory action a defendant may voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of any court having cognizance of such a case, but the jurisdiction of the subject-matter of an action must exist by law, and it can not be conferred by the- consent or conduct of the litigants.

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

All the judges concur.

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

Related

Mitchell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
82 Mo. 106 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)
Ellis v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
83 Mo. 372 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)
Backenstoe v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.
86 Mo. 492 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Wiseman v. St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Co.
30 Mo. App. 516 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Kinion v. Kansas City, Springfield & Memphis Railroad
30 Mo. App. 573 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 Mo. App. 655, 1894 Mo. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mier-v-st-louis-iron-mountain-southern-railroad-moctapp-1894.