Abbott v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad
Citations
- 83 Mo. 271
Syllabus
<p>1. Running Streams: interference with. Unless authorized by lawful authority no one can interfere to any material extent with the waters of a running stream.</p> <p>2. -: bridge : negligence. Where, however, there is lawful authority for the construction of a bridge or other structure over such stream, the person building it is liable, only in case of negligence or unslrilfulness in the manner of doing the work, to one suffering injury from its interference with the running water.</p> <p>3. -: -:-. Where such bridge or structure is erected without lawful authority there may be a recovery -without proof of negligence.</p> <p>4. Instructions: negligence. In an action for injury to a land owner from overflow of water from a stream caused by the negligent construction of a bridge, the instructions should confine the jury to the specific facts of negligence charged in the petition.'</p> <p>5. Surface Water: railroad : road-bed. A railroad, in the absence of negligence or unskilfulness in the constructiva of its road-bed, will not be liable to a land owner for injury from the overflow of surface water occasioned by the obstruction of the road-bed.</p> <p>6. The rule of the common law as to the flow of surface water affirmed and that of the civil law denied.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that, when a trial court bifurcates a divorce and decides some, but not all, issues, that decision is a final “decision on the merits” under Supreme Court Rules 3 and 7
- ruling that, because appellant had not timely filed a motion for reconsideration 2 from the order on the merits, the appeal was timely only as to the order denying the untimely motion, and not as to the order on the merits
- treating order on untimely post-divorce motion for reconsideration as final order and declining appeal from it
- treating appeal as timely only as to the denial of the untimely motion for reconsideration, but not as to the earlier decision on the merits
- discussing Virginia's time limit for notice of appeal including that exceptions to the requirement do not defeat the conclusion that it is consistently applied
- treating appeal from denial of untimely motion for reconsideration as timely appeal only as to the denial of the motion, and not as to the earlier decision on the merits
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hougit, Ray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.