Smith v. Hannibal St. Joseph Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Daviess Circuit Court. — Hon. Chas. H. S. Goodman, Judge. Under the agreed statement of facts there could be no recovery in an action for negligence at common law. (1) The cow was killed within the limits of the city of Chillicothe, so that, even if this were not a common-law action, no question of the duty of the defendant to-fence its track could arise. (2) No question can arise in respect to a violation of the bell-ringing statute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Daviess Circuit Court. — Hon. Chas. H. S. Goodman, Judge. Under the agreed statement of facts there could be no recovery in an action for negligence at common law. (1) The cow was killed within the limits of the city of Chillicothe, so that, even if this were not a common-law action, no question of the duty of the defendant to-fence its track could arise. (2) No question can arise in respect to a violation of the bell-ringing statute. Ringing the bell or sounding the whistle is only required for the benefit of parties using the highway. Long Case, 23 Mo. App. 178; Dahlstrom…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This was a suit brought before a justice of the peace to recover damages for the killing of a ■ cow. The complaint 'alleged that defendant negligently .and carelessly ran over and killed the plaintiff’s cow, ■ etc. The case was tried in the circuit court upon the .following agreed statement of facts :
“ It is agreed that in the trial of this cause. the fol-To wing facts shall be taken as proven: That the cow ¡sued for was worth the sum of $50; that she vvas struck .and was killed by defendant’s train, not on a street or ■public crossing, and that at the time the bell on the *549train was not…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gage v. GatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Munford v. WilsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- Lecompte v. WashSupreme Court of Missouri · 1845
- J. W. Moore & Son v. HenryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Brown v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
3Cited by1 opinion
- Decker v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915