Adams-Newell Lumber, Co. v. Jones, 29753

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcGowen, J.
Citation139 So. 315,162 Miss. 517
Decision Date25 January 1932
Docket Number29753
PartiesADAMS-NEWELL LUMBER, CO. v. JONES

139 So. 315

162 Miss. 517

ADAMS-NEWELL LUMBER, CO.
v.
JONES

No. 29753

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 25, 1932


Division A

Suggestion Of Error Overruled February 8, 1932.

APPEAL from circuit court of Neshoba county HON. D. M. ANDERSON, Judge.

Action by W. E. Jones against the Adams-Newell Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Richardson, Pierce & Sanford, of Philadelphia, for appellant.

The court erred in taking jurisdiction of the cause, because the declaration shows upon its face that the amount of damages claimed by the appellee which could be recovered was less than the jurisdictional amount of which the circuit court has jurisdiction. Under the allegations [162 Miss. 518] of the declaration the only damages alleged which could be recovered in the action was one hundred fifty dollars, the alleged value of the cow, therefore, the amount demanded other than the value of the cow was so remote until it was only a matter of surplusage in the declaration and did not aid to give the court jurisdiction of the cause.

Sec. 490, Code 1930, sec. 481, Hemingway's Code of Miss. 1917.

The court committed error in granting the instruction for the plaintiff in the court below based upon section 1580 of Code 1930.

Wickton v. Louisville & Northern Railroad Company, 45 F.2d 615.

Williamson & Clayton and Nate S. Williamson, all of Meridian, for appellee.

The prima facie instruction was harmless error.

Andrew McMullen v. Kinchin Mayo, 8 S. & M. 298; Barringer v. Nesbit, 1 S. & M. 22; Bell v. Medford et al., 57 Miss. 31; Nichols v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co., 36 So. 192.

The court did not err in taking jurisdiction of the cause because without regard to whether or not certain elements of damages set forth in the declaration were recoverable there can surely be no doubt but what the declaration properly seeks to recover actual damages in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars and also punitive or exemplary damages based upon the fact as charged in the declaration, that the defendant or its servants or employees in charge of said train did negligently, carelessly and wilfully or with such gross negligence as would be equivalent to wilful or capricious wrong caused said train to run into and to injure and kill said cow.

The court did not err in granting the prima-facie instruction.

Miss. Cent. R. Co. v. Knight, 103 So. 377; Roberds v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 21 So. 10; New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co. v. Harrison, 105 Miss. 18, 61 So. 655.

The appellee was entitled to a peremptory instruction on the question of liability and if we are right in this conclusion the granting of the prima facie instruction could not under any circumstances be considered reversible...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Murray v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co, 30986
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 15, 1934
    ...Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Ford, 53 S.Ct. 249; N. O. & G. N. R. Co. v. Walden, 160 Miss. 102, 133 So. 241; Adams-Newell. Lbr. Co. v. Jones, 162 Miss. 517, 139 So. 315; A. G. S. Ry. v. Hunnicutt, 53 So. 617, 98 Miss. 272; G. M. & N. R. R. v. Jones, 102 So. 385, 137 Miss. 631; C. & G. Ry. Co. v. C......
  • Chapman v. Chase Nat Bank, 32627
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 12, 1937
    ...Me. 240; Rider-Ericson Engine Co. v. Fowler, 37 Misc. 810, 76 N.Y.S. 903; McLaren v. Hall, 26 Iowa 297; Adams-Newell Lbr. Co. v. Jones, 162 Miss. 517, 139 So. 315; Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Dunlap, 164 Miss. 709, 145 So. 646; N. O. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Walden, 160 Miss. 102, 133 So. ......
  • Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Dunlap, 30319
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1933
    ...of course, have been submitted to the jury, without any instructions as to the prima facie statute. Adams-Newell Lumber Company v. Jones, 162 Miss. 517. In action for injury by railroad engine, where circumstances of injury are shown by plaintiff's evidence or by defendant's evidence only, ......
3 cases
  • Murray v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co, 30986
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 15, 1934
    ...Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Ford, 53 S.Ct. 249; N. O. & G. N. R. Co. v. Walden, 160 Miss. 102, 133 So. 241; Adams-Newell. Lbr. Co. v. Jones, 162 Miss. 517, 139 So. 315; A. G. S. Ry. v. Hunnicutt, 53 So. 617, 98 Miss. 272; G. M. & N. R. R. v. Jones, 102 So. 385, 137 Miss. 631; C. & G. Ry. Co. v. C......
  • Chapman v. Chase Nat Bank, 32627
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 12, 1937
    ...Me. 240; Rider-Ericson Engine Co. v. Fowler, 37 Misc. 810, 76 N.Y.S. 903; McLaren v. Hall, 26 Iowa 297; Adams-Newell Lbr. Co. v. Jones, 162 Miss. 517, 139 So. 315; Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Dunlap, 164 Miss. 709, 145 So. 646; N. O. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Walden, 160 Miss. 102, 133 So. ......
  • Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Dunlap, 30319
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1933
    ...of course, have been submitted to the jury, without any instructions as to the prima facie statute. Adams-Newell Lumber Company v. Jones, 162 Miss. 517. In action for injury by railroad engine, where circumstances of injury are shown by plaintiff's evidence or by defendant's evidence only, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT