Seibert v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. O’Neill By an, Judge. (1) As counsel for plaintiff does not allege in Ms petition any uegligence in the construction of the offending crossing gate, or the fenders which were placed beside it for the purpose of protecting it, but simply bases his cause of action on the fact that the gate was an unlawful obstruction in the street, and expressly avers in his petition that both the gate and the fenders were placed in the street…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. O’Neill By an, Judge. (1) As counsel for plaintiff does not allege in Ms petition any uegligence in the construction of the offending crossing gate, or the fenders which were placed beside it for the purpose of protecting it, but simply bases his cause of action on the fact that the gate was an unlawful obstruction in the street, and expressly avers in his petition that both the gate and the fenders were placed in the street by and with the permission of the city of St. Louis, he cannot contend that the fenders were mot included in the permit…
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, J.
This is an action to recover $5,000 damages for the death of the plaintiff’s husband on May 11, 1900, caused by a fire engine, of which he was the driver, colliding with a guard or fender connected with a crossing gate at the northwest comer of Broadway and Poplar streets in the city of St. Louis. The plaintiff recovered judgment for $5,000, and after proper steps the defendant appe'aled.
The suit was originally instituted against the city of St. Louis and the defendant railway company. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the city of St. Lduis, but against the defendant railway company.
*662THE…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Smith v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Cardwell v. American Bridge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Miller v. Mayor of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Julia Building Ass'n v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Schopp v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- In re Estate of SoulardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Stern v. International Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Detamore v. HindleyWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- Auslander v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Boyd v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.