Case Name: Belcher v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1882-04
Citations: 75 Mo. 514
Docket Number: 
Parties: Belcher v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Appellant.
Judges: in which all concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 514–516

Head Matter:
Belcher v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Appellant.
Bailroad: killing live stock : action fob. double damages : pleading. In an action against a railroad company to recover double damages for tbe killing of live stock, tbe statement filed with tbe justice of tbe peace alleged that tbe animals “strayed upon the track of said railroad on or near a farm crossing, at a point in the line of said railroad where said railroad was not fenced and where tbe crossing and cattle-guards were not made as tbe law requires; and that defendant so carelessly and negligently ran and managed its cars and locomotive that they ran against and over ” the animals, killing them. Held, that, as tbe case was begun before a justice of tbe peace, these allegations were sufficient to support a recovery.
Appeal from, Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Noah M. Givan, Judge.
Affirmed.
T. J. Portis and E. A. Andrews for appellant.
Foster P. Wright and N. J. Thompson for respondent.
In the case of Cobb v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, submitted at the same term, a judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Norton, J.
This is an action commenced before a justice of the peace to recover double damages for killing one cow and two sheep by defendant. Plaintiff had judgment before the justice, and, on defendant's appeal to the circuit court of Cass county, again obtained judgment, from which judgment defendant prosecutes an appeal to this court and assigns for error the action of the court in overruling defendant's objection to the introduction of any evidence because of the insufficiency of plaintiff's statement.
The statement, after alleging that defendant was a corporation, etc., contained the following averments, viz: " That plaintiff was the owner of one cow of the value of :$40, and of two sheep of the value of $7,,which cow and sheep, without the fault of plaintiff, strayed upon the track •of said railroad, on or near a farm crossing, at a point on the of said railroad in Big Greek township, Gass county, where said road was not fenced, and where the crossing . and cattle- guards were not made as the law requires; that defendant, by its agents and servants, so carelessly and negligently ran and managed its said cars and locomotive, that they ran against and over said cow and sheep, killing the same, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $47, wherefore plaintiff asks that the sum of $47 be doubled, and that he have judgment for $94, with interest from, the time of said killing."
The case of Edwards v. K. C., St. Jo. & C. B. R. R. Co., 74 Mo. 117, is decisive of the question here presented. In that case a statement similar to the one in tins case was held to be sufficient; and the case of Sloan v. Mo. Pac. R'y Co., 74 Mo. 47, to which we have been cited by counsel as sustaining his objection to the sufficiency of the statement, was distinguished from the case then under consideration.. We have held that if in a statement filed before a justice of the peace, the nature of the transaction and the particulars of the demand appear so as to apprise the opposing-party what he is called upon to defend, and specific enough to bar another action, that it is sufficient. Iba v. H. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 45 Mo. 469; Norton v. H. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 48 Mo. 388; Razor v. R. R. Co., 73 Mo. 471; Key v. R. R. Co., 73 Mo. 475; Meyer v. McCabe, 73 Mo. 236. The statement in this case comes up fully to these requirements. Judgment affirmed,
in which all concur.