TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Elliott v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad

Elliott v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company

Elliott v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R., 66 Mo. 683 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1877
Judges
Hough, Otlifer
Citations
66 Mo. 683
Headnotes
1. Railroads: statutory liability op, por injuries to animals. No action can be maintained, under the 43rd section of the railroad law ("Wag., Stat., p. 310), for animals killed within the limits of a town or city; in such cases, where fences have not been, blit might lawfully be erected, the action should be brought under section 5 of the damage act (Wag. Stat., p. 520), which dispenses with the proof of negligence, or, the action should be brought at common law. 2. -: pences. Where, within the limits of a town or city, lands dedicated to public use, and crossing or abutting upon the right of way of a railroad company, are occupied and used for farming purposes, such occupancy does not malee it lawful for the railroad company to fence across them, and its failure to do so will not subject it to liability under the 5th section of the damage act.
Summary
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court. — Hon. John T. Redd, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hough

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hough, J.

— This was an action brought under the 43ra section of the act in relation to railroad companies to re *684 cover double the value of two mules killed by the trains of the defendant, near its depot, within the town plat of the town of Ely, in Marion county. We held in the case of Edwards v. Hann. & St. Joe. R. R. Co., ante p. 567, that no action can be maintained under the 43rd section of the railroad law for animals killed within the limits of a town or city. When animals are killed in towns and cities where fences have not been, but might lawfully be erected, the action should be brought under the 5th section of the damage act, which in all such cases dispenses with the proof of negligence. We do not mean to say that on the facts disclosed in the present record, an action could be successfully maintained under the last mentioned section; on that point we need not now express any opinion. We only mean to say that if plaintiff has any right of action, it is under that section or at common law.

It may not be inappropriate to remark, in this connection, that where, within the limits of a town or city, the original proprietor, or other person, shall take possession of and use for farming purposes lands dedicated to public use, which cross or abut upon the right of way of a railroad company, such occupancy will not make it lawful for the railroad company to fence such dedicated lands, and the absence of fences in such cases will not dispense with proof of negligence. Following the case above cited, the judgment in this case must be reversed and the cause remanded.

The otlifer judges concur.

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1883–1884: 11891–1892: 21895–1896: 11901–1902: 11921–1922: 118832026peak 1891 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Edmunds v. Salt Lake & L. A. Ry. Co.196 P. 1019 (Utah 1921)
  2. Farrell v. Union Trust Co.77 Mo. 475 (1883)
  3. Brandenburg v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad44 Mo. App. 224 (1891)
  4. Railroad v. Hughes94 Tenn. 450 (1895)
  5. Vanderworker v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.48 Mo. App. 654 (1892)
  6. Smith v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.68 S.W. 238 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)

Most recent

  1. Edmunds v. Salt Lake & L. A. Ry. Co.196 P. 1019 (Utah 1921)
  2. Smith v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.68 S.W. 238 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)
  3. Railroad v. Hughes94 Tenn. 450 (1895)
  4. Vanderworker v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.48 Mo. App. 654 (1892)
  5. Brandenburg v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad44 Mo. App. 224 (1891)
  6. Farrell v. Union Trust Co.77 Mo. 475 (1883)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list