99;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  City  of  St.  Louis,  86  Mo.  495;  Christal
V.  Craig,  80  Mo.  367;  Henderson  v.  Dickey,  50  Mo.  161;  Ken-
drick  V.  R.  R.  Co.,  81  Mo.  521 ;  Linville  v.  Harrison,  30  Mo.  228 ;
Jamison  v.  Copher,  35  Mo.  483 ;  Ederlin  v.  Judge,  36  Mo.  351 ;
Southworth  Co.  v.  Lamb,  82  Mo.  242.  While  there  was  but  one
injury,  and  there  could  be  but  one  recovery  for  it,  any  number
of  negligent  acts  preceding  the  injury  and  leading  up  to  and
contributing  to  it  might  properly  be  set  forth  in  the  same  count
of  the  petition,  if  of  the  same  character.  An  action  for  damages
at  common  law  for  negligence  cannot  be  joined  in  the  same
count  with  one  for  statutory^"  negligence  for  the  very  obvious
reason  that  they  could  have  no  possible  connection  with,  or  in
any  way  be  dependent  upon,  each  other.  Kendrick  v.  Chicago
&  Alton  R.  R.  Co.,  81  Mo.  521 ;  Harris  v.  Wabash  R.  R.  Co.,  51
Mo.  App.  125.  Hill  V.  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  49  App.  520,  and  same
case  in  121  Mo.  477,  26  S.  W.  576,  relied  upon  by  plaintiff,  does
not  announce  a  contrary  rule.  Upon  the  other  hand,  the  acts
of  negligence  preceding  the  injury  in  that  case  were  all  of  the

10  Contra,  Payne   v.  Ry.,  201  N.       on  common  law  and  statutory  lia-
Y.   436,    (1911)    (one    count    based       biUty  for  same  injury).
