Offield v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.

22 Mo. App. 607, 1886 Mo. App. LEXIS 335
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 14, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 22 Mo. App. 607 (Offield v. Wabash, St. Louis & 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
Offield v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co., 22 Mo. App. 607, 1886 Mo. App. LEXIS 335 (Mo. Ct. App. 1886).

Opinion

Ellison, J.

This action is to recover two thousand dollars damages sustained by plaintiff by the destruction of his crops from the overflow of Ms lands, alleged to have been caused by defendant. The overflow resulted from a diversion of the channel of a certain water course, known as “Board Tree Branch,” and occurred in the years 3879, 1880, 1881, 1882, and 1883, successively. The entire cause of action is stated in one count, and the damage is laid in one sum. Defendant filed a motion to require plaintiff to elect which year he would contend for. This motion was overruled, exception was taken, and the point saved in the motion for new trial. The motion should have been sustained. When crops are injured by an annual overflow of water, such injury does not go to the entire value of the estate, but, being ©f yearly recurrence, is susceptible of periodical apportionment, and may, therefore, be redressed by successive actions. Van Hoozer v. Railroad, 70 Mo. 145; Dickson v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 575. Each annual overflow was a separate cause of action, and, as such, should have been separately stated in plaintiff ’ s petition. Mooney v. Kennet, 19 Mo. 551; Otis v. Mechanics’ Bank, 35 Mo. 128. The motion to require plaintiff to elect on which cause [609]*609lie -would proceed,'and strike out the balance, was the proper mode of striking at the petition. Otis v. Mechanics Bank, supra; Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 367.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Related

Kelley v. City of Cape Girardeau
72 S.W.2d 880 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1934)
B'ham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Nicholas
61 So. 361 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
Southern Railway Co. v. McIntyre
44 So. 624 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Foster-Cherry Commission Co. v. Davis
90 S.W. 734 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Iron City Mining Co. v. Hughes
42 So. 39 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1905)
Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Shahan
116 Ala. 302 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1896)
Bunten v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
50 Mo. App. 414 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Buntin v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
41 F. 744 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1890)
Dooley v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
36 Mo. App. 381 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
Bird v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
30 Mo. App. 365 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Mo. App. 607, 1886 Mo. App. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/offield-v-wabash-st-louis-pacific-railway-co-moctapp-1886.