Jones v. Chicago, Burlington & Kansas City Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Putnam Circuit Court.—Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. (1) Negligence alleged in the petition is that the cattle guard over which the mare passed “was then, and ever since its construction had been, defective, unlawful and insufficient to prevent,” etc. The uncontroverted facts are, no one saw the mare crossing the guard. This guard was a standard guard and similar in every respect to the guards used upon all railroads of the country.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Putnam Circuit Court.—Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. (1) Negligence alleged in the petition is that the cattle guard over which the mare passed “was then, and ever since its construction had been, defective, unlawful and insufficient to prevent,” etc. The uncontroverted facts are, no one saw the mare crossing the guard. This guard was a standard guard and similar in every respect to the guards used upon all railroads of the country. The supposition or the opinion of the witnesses was that the mare was frightened by the train and jumped across. There was no defect in the guard.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This case was here on another occasion, as maybe seen by reference to 52 Mo. App. 381. The nature of the case then, as now, there sufficiently appears. The judgment was then reversed and the cause remanded. There has been since then another trial resulting in a judgment for plaintiff and from which defendant has appealed.
The instructions given for plaintiff are so manifestly erroneous and repugnant to those for the defend*141ant that we feel compelled on that account to reverse the judgment.
The plaintiff’s first instruction told the jury that if the plaintiff’s mare.got upon defendant’s railway…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hubbard v. QuisenberryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Cole v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Jones v. Chicago, Burlington & Kansas City Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1893
3Cited by3 opinions
- Midland Valley R. Co. v. BryantSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Miller v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Meadows v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1899