Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Boyd v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 28, 1913Published

Appeal from Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. B. G. Thurman, Judge. (1) The petition in this ease, in one count, attempts to state a cause of action both under Sec. 5425 and 5426, R. S. 1909, and for this reason appellant's demurrer and motion to elect should have been sustained. Casey v. Railroad, 205 Mo. 72Í; Peters v. Railroad, 150 Mo. App. 721; King y. Railroad, 130 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. B. G. Thurman, Judge. (1) The petition in this ease, in one count, attempts to state a cause of action both under Sec. 5425 and 5426, R. S. 1909, and for this reason appellant's demurrer and motion to elect should have been sustained. Casey v. Railroad, 205 Mo. 72Í; Peters v. Railroad, 150 Mo. App. 721; King y. Railroad, 130 Mo. App. 368. (2) It is the duty of the section men to look out for the approach of trains and for their own safety while on or near the track. Degonia v. Railroad, 224 Mo. 564; Evans v. Railroad, 178 Mo. 517; Ring v. Railroad, 112…

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION.

GRAVES, J.

I concur in what Brother Brown says as to the construction to he given to section 5425, Revised Statutes 1909. I agree with him that such statute in its make-up is penal so far as the minimum of $2000 is concerned, and compensatory as to the amount which may he found above that sum, and that it is not only proper but mandatory to introduce evidence to enlighten the jury in the exercise of their discretion,- so far as the damages in excess of $2000 are concerned. I also concur in the result of his opinion, hut do not agree with him as to some other matters. To my…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Honea v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
  2. Honea v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1913

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API