Gates v. Chicago & Alton Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Pike Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. The testimony of the several witnesses offered by the defendant as to the effect of a fire on meadow lands is admissible. It is a proper matter for expert testimony. Rogers on Expert Testimony, secs. 10, 111, and authorities there cited; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 440; Eyerman v. Sheehan,- 52 Mo. 221; White v. Stoner, 18 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Pike Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. The testimony of the several witnesses offered by the defendant as to the effect of a fire on meadow lands is admissible. It is a proper matter for expert testimony. Rogers on Expert Testimony, secs. 10, 111, and authorities there cited; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 440; Eyerman v. Sheehan,- 52 Mo. 221; White v. Stoner, 18 Mo. App. 540; Railroad v. Wright, 115 Ind. 378; Leopold v. Van Kirk, 29 Wis. 548; Curtis v. Railroad, 18 Wis. 327. (2) The testimony of witness Angus, whose meadow was like plaintiff’s and just across the county road,…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This was an action against a railroad company for damages for the burning of certain property by fire communicated by one of its locomotives. *490The property which was destroyed consisted of fence rails, stones placed under the corners of the fences, a portion of a hedge fence, ten stacks of hay, one rick of hay, and seventy acres of meadow and grass. It was admitted at the trial that the defendant burned the property described in the petition ; but the defendant denied the value of the property as therein alleged, and the value of the property was the only question contested at the trial. There…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Ferguson v. . HubbellNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Thorpe v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Holmes v. BraidwoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Grisby v. Clear Lake Water Works Co.California Supreme Court · 1870
- Reilly v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Neosho City Water Co. v. City of NeoshoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Adam v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Doty v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Wiggins v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Coffman v. Saline Valley RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.