Case Name: Charles W. Hoover, Respondent, v. Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: St. Louis Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1897-03-09
Citations: 69 Mo. App. 557
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles W. Hoover, Respondent, v. Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
Charles W. Hoover, Respondent, v. Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railroad Company, Appellant.
St. Louis Court of Appeals,
March 9, 1897.
Railroads: signals at crossing op public highway: construction op statutes: instructions. Under section 2608, Bevised Statutes, 1889, requiring a railroad company to blow the locomotive whistle or ring the bell on approaching the crossing of a public highway, to do either was a compliance with the statute; and instructions requiring both of defendant were erroneous.
Appeal from, the Newton Circuit Cowrt. — Hon. J. C. Lamson, Judge.
Reveesed and eemanded.
Trimble & Braley for appellant.
Under section 2608, Revised Statutes, 1889, it is sufficient if either the whistle be blown, as there required, or the bell rung; it is not necessary that both should be done. Turner v. B. B., 78 Mo. 578; Rafferty v. B. B., 82 Id. 90; Kenney v. B. B., 105 Id. 270; McCormick v. B. B., 50 Mo. App. 109.
No brief filed for respondent.

Opinion:
Bland, P. J.
Action brought before a justice of the peace, in Neosho township, Newton county, for value of one horse alleged to have been killed at the crossing of a public highway over defendant's road in said township. The negligence averred, and which the evidence tended to prove, was the failure of the defendant's employees to sound the locomotive whistle, or ring the bell, as required by section 2608, Revised Statutes, 1889. ij^g was controverted by defendant's witnesses by evidence tending to prove that the whistle was sounded as required by said section 2668. Instructions numbers 1 and 2, given on the part of the plaintiff, instructed the jury that the fact was negligence on the part of the defendant, if its employees failed to do both; that is, sound the whistle, and ring the bell. To have done either would have been a compliance within the statute. These instructions required more of the defendant than did the law, and are erroneous. Turner v. R. R., 78 Mo. 578; Kenney v. R. R., 105 Mo. 270; McCormick v. R. R., 50 Mo. App. 109.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
All concur.