Gilmore v. Harp
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Obristian Circnit, Court. — Son. Jumes L. Neville, Judge. We do not understand that an actual division fence in fact is necessary to take tbe case out of tbe operation of tbe stock law, but that tbe agreement to build and maintain one is all that is required, and if tbe defendant failed to comply with bis agreement and build bis part, be is guilty of contributory negligence; be invites the trespass, injury, and damages and can not complain or shield himself…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Obristian Circnit, Court. — Son. Jumes L. Neville, Judge. We do not understand that an actual division fence in fact is necessary to take tbe case out of tbe operation of tbe stock law, but that tbe agreement to build and maintain one is all that is required, and if tbe defendant failed to comply with bis agreement and build bis part, be is guilty of contributory negligence; be invites the trespass, injury, and damages and can not complain or shield himself behind tbe stock law. Eield v. Bogie, 72 Mo. App. 185. Hopkins v. Ott, 57 Mo. App.. 292.
1Opinion of the CourtBarclay, J.
This is an action for specific personal property, namely: a lot of bogs, admitted to belong to plaintiff. Tbe defense is that tbe bogs escaped from plaintiff’s *387premises, adjoining those of defendant, and that defendant lawfully detained the animals by authority of the law (B. S. 1899, secs. 4777, 4791) for the restraint of such animals in Porter township, Christian county, where the controversy and the suit arose. The learned circuit judge made a finding of facts at the trial before him (a jury having been waived) March 6, 1900, and on the facts found the court entered a general verdict for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ross v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Gilmore v. HarpMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mirax Chemical Products Corp. v. TarantolaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954