Court Opinion

ID: 9864434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:06:07.380807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:10.606612
License: Public Domain

Smith, J. (Opinion on rehearing, 153 S. W. 2d 167.) In support of the petition for rehearing in these companion cases (Sangalli v. Freight Co. and Holmes v. Freight Co.*) it is insisted that act 314 of the Acts of 1939 prevents the maintenance of these suits in this state, and that this is especially true in the Holmes case. Sangalli is a resident of this state, while Holmes is a resident of the state of Texas, and both were injured in a collision which occurred in the state of Missouri. These suits — as the original opinions state — are predicated upon § 1394, Pope’s Digest. This section permits suits against the common carriers named operating over fixed lines or routes in this state, and upon the authority of the- cases cited in the original opinions they may be sued in this state upon causes of action not originating in the state in any county through which their lines or routes run. Act 314 effects no change in this respect. It is a venue act, which does not create or destroy any cause of action. It localizes causes of action originating in this state, and has no application to causes of action arising in some other state. One injured in this state through the wrongful act of another within the meaning of act 314 may sue upon that cause of action in another state if proper service may be had; but if he elects to sue in this state the cause of action must be brought in the county where the injury occurred or in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the time of his injury.   See post p. 663.