Case ID: mo_80/html/0423-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Norton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cowan v. The St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, Appellant.
    
    Railroads: complaint : keviewable ekroes. The case of Jackson v. Si. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R’y Co., ante, p. 147, affirmed.
    
      Appeal from Butler Circuit Court. — Hon. R. P. Owen, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      Smith & Krauthoff with T. J. Portis for appellant.
    Plaintiff’s statement does not state a cause of action. Bates v. Bailway Co., 74 Mo. 60, and cases cited; Asher v. Bailroad Co., 79 Mo. 432. The instruction given on behalf of plaintiff’ was erroneous. Mumpower v. Bailroad Co., 59 Mo. 242. Nor was there any evidence that the animal entered upon the railroad at a point where there was no fence,' and where the railroad passed through adjoining, inclosed and cultivated fields or uninclosed land. Davis v. Bailroad Co., 65 Mo. 441.
    
      Edwin Silver and I. M. Davidson for respondent.
    The statement is sufficient; certainly so after verdict. Bowen v. Bailraad Co., 75 Mo. 427; Beecher c. Bailroad Co., 75 Mo. 515 ; Bozzdle. v. Bailroad Co,, 79 Mo. 849; Bales v. Bailroad Co., 74 Mo. 60; Welch v. Byan, 28 Mo. 32. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the submission of the case to the jury. Moore v. Railroad Go., 73 Mo. 488; JBlew-itt v. Railroad Go '., 72 Mo. 583. The court cannot review the action of the trial court in giving and refusing instructions, because no exception is preserved in the hill to the overruling of the motion for a new trial. State ex rel. Estes v. Gaither, 77 Mo. 304.
   Norton, J.

The point made by counsel that the statement fails to state a cause of action, is not well taken. The statement is precisely like the statement in the case of Jackson v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R’y Co., ante, p. 147, which was held to be good.

The only other point made by counsel is, that the court erred in its instructions, and this point cannot be considered by us, for the reason that the bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was taken to the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial, and this under the ruling of this court in the case of State ex rel. Estes v. Gaither, 77 Mo. 304, forbids an examination of the instructions.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.