Haggard v. Atlantic & Pacific Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Oourt. Hansberger vs. Pac. R. R. 43 Mo. 196; Iba vs. H. & St. Joe. R. R. Co., 45 Mo. 470. The writ shows that the action was commenced in the township and county wherein the killing occurred. This is sufficient. It is not necessary that either the statement or transcript of the justice should do so. (Hansbergervs. Pac. R. R., 48 Mo. 196 ; Iba vs. Hann. & St. Joe. R. R. Co., 45 Mo. 469, particularly concluding portion of opinion on page 475.)
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
The complaint filed with the justice is in this form:
Plaintiff states that on the morning of the 6th day of August, 1878, an eastward bound train ran over and damaged and left in a dying condition, a certain heifer belonging to plaintiff of the value twenty dollars, for which he asks judgment,
James Haggard, Plaintiff.
This was filed with one of the justices of New Haven Township, Franklin County.
*303Summons thereupon issued, directed to the constable of that township, commanding him to summon the defendant “ to appear before the undersigned justice of the peace of New Haven Township in Franklin…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Barnett v. Atlantic & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Dowdy v. WambleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Mitchell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Ewing v. DonnellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Shaw v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.