8 So. 798 (Ala. 1891), Stanton v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
|Citation:||8 So. 798, 91 Ala. 382|
|Opinion Judge:||COLEMAN, J.|
|Party Name:||STANTON v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.|
|Attorney:||J. W. Posey, for appellant. J. M. Falkner, for appellee.|
|Case Date:||January 30, 1891|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Alabama|
Appeal from circuit court, Escambia county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.
Action by W. W. Stanton against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for damages to plaintiff's buggy and harness. The first count of the complaint sought to recover damages for the destruction and injury to his horse, buggy, and harness, occasioned by the alleged negligence and omissions of duty by the employes of the defendant corporation. The second count was in the following language: "The plaintiff also claims of the defendant three hundred dollars damages, for that whereas, on, to-wit, the 15th day of March, 1889, the plaintiff, riding in his buggy, traveling on the public dirt road approaching its crossing of the track of said Louisville & Nashville Railroad, at or near the Pensacola junction depot, or Flomaton, in Escambia county and state of Alabama, found trains of said railroad company standing on the track of said railroad across said public crossing, completely blockading and stopping up said public road crossing, so that plaintiff could not pass over said road at said public crossing with his said mare and buggy; and although the agent or employes of said railroad company at said point were requested to remove said trains from across said public road crossing, yet they failed and omitted for a half-hour or more to remove said trains so that plaintiff could pass over said crossing with his said mare and buggy, and proceed on his journey, and was thus delayed by the negligence of defendant; and when said trains were at length removed, before he could drive or travel more than thirty or fifty yards over and past said railroad track on his journey, a running train of said defendant approached and came up at said public crossing, and although he was endeavoring to hold his said mare, said train so frightened her that she broke loose from plaintiff, and ran away with his said buggy and harness, and destroyed said buggy and harness, and greatly injured said mare, and put plaintiff to great trouble and inconvenience and expense in following up and repossessing his said mare; wherefore he says that, by the negligence and omissions of the duties of defendant's agents or employes, he is injured, and has sustained damages to the amount," etc. The defendant interposed demurrers to both counts of the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP