Rowland v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

73 Mo. 619
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 73 Mo. 619 (Rowland v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rowland v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co., 73 Mo. 619 (Mo. 1881).

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

The first and second counts in the statement filed with the justice of the peace, though obviously insufficient, yet contain sufficient matter to amend by, as it evidently inferentially refers to the 43rd section of the railroad act. The circuit court, therefore, committed no error in permitting the amendment of the statement when the cause came to that court by appeal.

But the amendment, when made, did not state facts constituting a cause of action, even under the section referred to, as amended, (Acts 1875, p. 131,) because the amended statement does not set forth that the hogs got on the railroad or were killed in consequence of the “failure to construct and maintain such fences or cattle-guards.” Luckie v. R. R. Co., 67 Mo. 245; Cunningham v. R. R. Co., 70 Mo. 202. From aught that appears in the amended statement the killing may have occurred within the limits of some incorporated town, where neither the law would require, nor the corporate authorities permit the defendant to fence its road. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Related

Stroeh v. McClintock
107 S.W. 416 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
Menard v. Montana Central Railway Co.
56 P. 592 (Montana Supreme Court, 1899)
Dowdy v. Womble
41 Mo. App. 573 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)
Manz v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
87 Mo. 278 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Watkins v. Donnelly
88 Mo. 322 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Holland v. West End Narrow Gauge Railway Co.
16 Mo. App. 172 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1884)
Mitchell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
82 Mo. 106 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)
Campbell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
78 Mo. 639 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Williams v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
80 Mo. 597 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Perriquez v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
78 Mo. 91 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Wade v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
78 Mo. 362 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Schulte v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
76 Mo. 324 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1882)
Bates v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
74 Mo. 60 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 Mo. 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowland-v-st-louis-iron-mountain-southern-railway-co-mo-1881.