Dean v. Omaha & St. Louis Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Nodaway Circuit Court. — Hon. Cyrus A. Anthony, Judge. (1) Plaintiff, being not an adjoining nor nest adjoining land owner, and bis cattle being in Campbell’s corn-field without license, is not within the class of persons protected by. the double damage act. Tils v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 278; Terris v. Railroad, 30 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Nodaway Circuit Court. — Hon. Cyrus A. Anthony, Judge. (1) Plaintiff, being not an adjoining nor nest adjoining land owner, and bis cattle being in Campbell’s corn-field without license, is not within the class of persons protected by. the double damage act. Tils v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 278; Terris v. Railroad, 30 Mo. App. 122; Berry v. Railroad, 65 Mo. 172; Harrington v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 384; Johnson v. Railroad, 80 Mo. 620; Peddicord v. Railroad, 85 Mo. 160; Carpenter v. Railroad, 25 Mo. App. 110; Smith v. Railroad, 25 Mo. App. 113. (2) Campbell, not plaintiff, was the adjoining…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
— This is a suit for double damages under Section 2611, Revised Statutes, 1889, wherein it is charged that defendant railway company failed to maintain a lawful fence along its tracks where the same passed through plaintiff’s farm, and by reason thereof, twelve head of cattle owned by him escaped on to the defendant’s right of way and were run over and killed by its engine and cars. Plaintiff recovered below in the sum of $768.00, double the value of the stock killed, and the defendant has appealed.
I. Defendant’s main contention here is, that plaintiff ought not to recover on the evidence…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Berry v. St. Louis, Salem & Little Rock R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Emmerson v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Duke v. Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Memphis RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Board v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern RailwayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Phillips v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904