Briggs v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Laiorence Circuit Coxwt. — Hon. M. Gr. MoGtbegob, Judge. The act is unconstitutional: (1) Because it gives plaintiff a fee for his attorney (m each court to which .the case may go), thereby depriving defendant of its property without due process of law, and giving it to another, — contrary to section 10, bill of rights of the •constitution of Missouri.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Laiorence Circuit Coxwt. — Hon. M. Gr. MoGtbegob, Judge. The act is unconstitutional: (1) Because it gives plaintiff a fee for his attorney (m each court to which .the case may go), thereby depriving defendant of its property without due process of law, and giving it to another, — contrary to section 10, bill of rights of the •constitution of Missouri. It requires the taxation of an attorney’s fee against the railway company, while there is no such burden put upon other citizens and other corporations. It is in the nature of a legislative forfeiture. Railroad v. Moss, 60 Miss.…
1Opinion of the CourtMaofarlane, J.
This action was commenced before a justice of the peace, and is for damages under sections 2612 and 2613, Revised Statutes, 1889, for killing a mare belonging to plaintiff. The amended statement under which the case was tried in the circuit court charged that defendant neglected to inclose its railroad by a good fence on both sides, as by law required, and by reason thereof plaintiff’s mare, worth $125, went upon the right of way, was frightened and run by a passing locomotive, and was killed by being run into a wire fence. TJpon a trial anew in the circuit court, plaintiff recovered judgment…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. HumesSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Humes v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Barnett v. Atlantic & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Mitchell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Tower v. MooreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Diehl v. O'MALLEYSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
- Dickson v. Omaha & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. O'BrienMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Meadowbrook Country Club v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1967
- State Ex Rel. Tolbert v. SweeneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.