Gee v. St. Louis & Gulf Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from New Madrid Circuit Court. — Now. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) The court should have sustained the demurrer to the evidence as to the second count in the petition. The plaintiff was not connected with the railroad nor employed by it, and under the statute was a trespasser on the track when the injury took place.
Read the full summary
Appeal from New Madrid Circuit Court. — Now. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) The court should have sustained the demurrer to the evidence as to the second count in the petition. The plaintiff was not connected with the railroad nor employed by it, and under the statute was a trespasser on the track when the injury took place. R. S. 1899, sec. 1105. And in addition he was guilty of such negligence as to bar him from recovery, and the demurrer ought to have been sustained for that reason. Prewitt'v. Eddy, 115 Mo. 283; Clem v. Railroad, 72 Mo. App. 433; Milburn v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 104; Corcoran v.…
1Concurrence
separate concurring opinion.
NORTONI, J.
I am of the opinion that the plaintiff, under ordinary circumstances, could have been guilty of no negligence in turning his horses loose on the commons a hundred feet away from the right of way, even though such right of way was unfenced, inasmuch as the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals of this State have repeatedly held that “the owner of cattle is guilty of no negligence in permitting his stock to run at large whether in the vicinity of a railroad track or remote from one.” [Turner v. K. C., etc., Ry. Co., 78 Mo. 578; Davis v. Hannibal & St. Joe…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Clinton County v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Milburn v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Kirkpatrick v. Illinois Southern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Davis v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1885