Vail v. Kansas City
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court, Hon. James B. Gantt, Judge. Statement of case by the court. This action was begun before a justice of tte peace, ,to recover damages for the killing of plaintiff’s cow.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court, Hon. James B. Gantt, Judge. Statement of case by the court. This action was begun before a justice of tte peace, ,to recover damages for the killing of plaintiff’s cow. The statement alleged tkat tke killing occurred inside -the corporate limits of the city of Clinton, in Henry county; that, at the point of injury, the defendant owned about twenty acres of land; that this tract was not designated on any plat as blocks or lots, nor is it any part of any addition to said city, nor has it ever been intersected by any streets or alleys in any direction, nor was it…
1Opinion of the CourtPhilips, P. J.
I. The first objection of appellant is, that the statement does not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The action was manifestly brought under section 2124, Revised Statutes, authorizing the recovery of damages, without any proof of negligence, where the injury occurs for killing such stock at a‘point on the railroad where the company may inclose the road with a lawful fence. Under this section *376it is held, to constitute a cause of action, that three things devolve upon the plaintiff : (1) That the injury must appear to have occurred at a place where there was no lawful…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Edwards v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Edwards v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Houx v. BatteenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Radcliffe v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Thomas v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- McMullen v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895