Brown v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis County Circuit Court, Edwards, J. “If the construction was that which was best adapted for those purposes, in known practical use, at the time the alleged cause of action arose, the duty of the company was performed.” —Fremantle v. Railway Co., 10 C. B. 95 ; F.& B. Turnpike Co. v. Railroad Co., 54 Pa.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis County Circuit Court, Edwards, J. “If the construction was that which was best adapted for those purposes, in known practical use, at the time the alleged cause of action arose, the duty of the company was performed.” —Fremantle v. Railway Co., 10 C. B. 95 ; F.& B. Turnpike Co. v. Railroad Co., 54 Pa. St. 342; Thomp. on Neg. 155; Reed v. Morse, 34 Wis. 315. The instruction in engrafting an additional cause of liability was a departure from the pleadings, and misleading under the evidence, and is erroneous. — Buffington v. Railroad Co., 64 Mo. 246 ; Pricey. Railway…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
The petition in this case alleges, that defendant, by reason of its negligence in not providing suitable spark arresters, or other safe means of preventing the escape of coals and sparks of fire from its engines attached to its cars operated on defendant’s road, did, on August 9, 1881, set fire to, and burn, certain fencing, shade trees, and grass, belonging to plaintiff. The answer was a general denial. The verdict and judgment were for plaintiff;'
*464The plaintiff made out a prima facie case, by introducing a witness who testified that he saw the sparks escape from a passing engine of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Berry v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Chenoweth v. Southern Pac. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Sappington v. Missouri Pacific RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
- Hyde v. St. Louis Book & News Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1888