Brown v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. I. Respondent’s 3d instruction asserts the proposition that the wife may, without regard to the authority from her husband, transfer his property, there being no evidence in the case that she had authority to act as his agent. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. I. Respondent’s 3d instruction asserts the proposition that the wife may, without regard to the authority from her husband, transfer his property, there being no evidence in the case that she had authority to act as his agent. II. Respondent’s 4th instruction is wrong, without a qualification to the effect that the road was not fenced at the place where the injuries complained of were done, and that the same was not done at a crossing of a highway. (Burton v. N. Mo. R.R. Co. 30 Mo. 372; Quick v. H. & St. Jo. R.R. Co. 31 Mo. 399 ; R. C. 1855, p. 649, § 5.) III.…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
The plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of certain cattle alleged to have been killed by the defendant on its railroad by means of its locomotives and cars. The Circuit Court seems to have tried the case on the theory that the fact of killing was all that was necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to recover. This was wrong. The gist of the action was the negligence of the defendant. Notwithstanding the killing was proved, yet unless it was done negligently or 'wilfully, the plaintiff was not entitled to *311recover, and the burden of proving it was on him. In such…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dyer v. Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
- Schnelle & Querl Lumber Co. v. BarlowU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1888
- Smith v. Hannibal St. Joseph RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Atchison, T. & S. F. R. v. WaltonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1886