Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Missouri, Kansas And Texas Railway Company v. Roberts

• 1893 • 152 U.S. 114 • Fuller Court
In the 1893 case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Roberts, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when Mr. Roberts sued for damages after his cattle were killed on an unfenced portion of the railroad's track, which ran through unenclosed land in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). According to a federal statute at that time, railroads operating within territories had to fence their tracks or be held liable for any livestock deaths caused by...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1893
Docket: 230
152 U.S. 114
14 S. Ct. 496
38 L. Ed. 377
1894 U.S. LEXIS 2101
Argued: Jan 30, 1894

Missouri, Kansas And Texas Railway Company v. Roberts

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1893 case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Roberts, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when Mr. Roberts sued for damages after his cattle were killed on an unfenced portion of the railroad's track, which ran through unenclosed land in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). According to a federal statute at that time, railroads operating within territories had to fence their tracks or be held liable for any livestock deaths caused by trains. However, this law did not apply to states where fencing was not required under state laws. The court determined that since Indian Territory was not technically a "territory" as defined by Congress but rather lands held in trust for Native American tribes with limited self-governance rights granted by treaties with the United States government; it could not be considered a territory subject to federal jurisdiction like other organized territories such as Arizona or New Mexico would have been during this period. Therefore, because there was no specific treaty provision requiring fences around railways running through these areas nor any local tribal law mandating such measures; it concluded that federal fencing requirements did not apply here and thus reversed lower courts' decisions awarding damages against Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Roberts, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of liability under common law principles. The dissent held that a railway company should not be liable for damages to livestock caused by trains unless negligence can be proven on their part. They contended that railroads are not insurers against all accidents but only those which occur due to their failure in duty or carelessness. This view contrasted with the majority's ruling which imposed an absolute liability on railroad companies for any damage done by their locomotives irrespective of whether they were negligent or not.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Mar 05, 1894
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms