Wiggins v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad

108 S.W. 574, 129 Mo. App. 369, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 129
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 3, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 108 S.W. 574 (Wiggins 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
Wiggins v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad, 108 S.W. 574, 129 Mo. App. 369, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 129 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

GOODE, J.

This is an action to recover damages for the burning of a meadow of timothy and a fence. The fire was set by a locomotive of the defendant. The case was here on a former appeal and was reversed chiefly on account of an error in the instruction on [370]*370the measure of damages. The court then ruled that the true measure of damages for the destruction of the meadow was the difference between the value of the premises or land before the fire and after it. The evidence showed the injury was to the inheritance; the grass roots were burned so that the meadow was destroyed. [Wiggins v. Railroad, 119 Mo. App. 492, 95 S. W. 311.] On the retrial the court instructed the jury in accordance with the decision on the former appeal, and tried the case with the view to ascertain the amount of damage done to the premises. On the present appeal the defendant complains of the admission of testimony regarding the amount of hay that could be produced on the land prior to the fire, the color of the soil and the price of hay. This testimony was objected to as irrelevant and immaterial, because the proper inquiry was as to the value of the land before and after the destruction of the meadow; but these inquiries were permitted by the court as a means of enabling the jury to get at said value. When witnesses were asked to testify directly regarding the value of the land before and after the fire, defendant’s counsel objected to the testimony. We hold all the evidence received by the court, of which the foregoing is an illustration, was properly received as throwing light on the amount of damages according to the rule of measurement prescribed. The worth of the land with the meadow destroyed in comparison to its worth with the meadow flourishing, might depend somewhat on all the facts elicited.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

Kerby v. Prairie Pipe Line Co.
4 S.W.2d 857 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1928)
Ozark Orchard Co. v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
158 S.W. 884 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Couch v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
158 S.W. 347 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Crouch v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
124 S.W. 1077 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 S.W. 574, 129 Mo. App. 369, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiggins-v-st-louis-san-francisco-railroad-moctapp-1908.