Arkansas Central Railroad Company v. Walker

• Decision Date: 21 November 1921
• Docket Number: 246
• Citation: 234 S.W. 619,150 Ark. 514
• Parties: ARKANSAS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. WALKER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

234 S.W. 619

150 Ark. 514

ARKANSAS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. WALKER

No. 246

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 21, 1921

Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Northern District; James Cochran Judge; reversed and affirmed.

Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.

Thos B. Pryor, for appellants.

The court will take judicial knowledge of the fact that at the time of the accrual of plaintiff's cause of action the government was in charge and operating the railroads of the country. 167 N.W. 59; 170 N.W. 149; § 206, par. "A" of Act of Congress, February 28, 1920.

Robt. J. White, for appellee.

OPINION

WOOD, J.

The appellee instituted this action against the appellants. He alleged, in substance, that the appellant, Arkansas Central Railroad Company, at the time of the filing of the complaint, was under the direction of the agent of railroads for the United States; that the Fort Smith, Subiaco & Eastern Railroad Company was operated in connection with the Arkansas Central Railroad Company; that it was the practice of those roads for shippers of live-stock to order stock cars for destination out of this State from the Arkansas Central through the agent of the Fort Smith, Subiaco & Eastern Railroad Company at its station of Scranton, Arkansas; that on the 18th day of August, 1919, the appellee so ordered two stock cars; one in which to ship cattle and the other to ship hogs. The shipments were to be made to Kansas City, Missouri; that the agent at Scranton placed the order for the cars with the agent of the Arkansas Central Railroad at Paris and was assured by the agent at Paris that the cars would be ordered immediately; that on the 22nd day of August, 1919, the appellee was notified by the agent of the Fort Smith, Subiaco & Eastern Railroad at Scranton that one of the cars in which to ship the hogs had arrived at Scranton, and that the other had arrived at Paris; that the appellee had notified the agent at Scranton to notify the agent at Paris that appellee desired to ship both the car of cattle and the car of hogs at the same time and on the same train. The appellee was assured by the agent at Scranton that the cars were ready for appellee's use. That, relying upon this assurance, on the morning of the 23rd of August, 1919, appellee loaded his hogs into the car at Scranton to be shipped out in the afternoon and drove his cattle to Paris to be shipped out by the same train on which the hogs were being shipped; that, on arriving at Paris with his cattle, he was informed by the agent there that no car had been ordered for him for his cattle; that appellee immediately placed another order for a cattle car and when his car of hogs reached Paris he was compelled to unload same and await the arrival of the cattle car; that the delay caused damage to the appellee by shrinkage in value of his cattle and hogs and by the loss of part of his hogs and one cow in the sum of $ 689.25, for which he asked judgment.

The appellant answered, denying all the allegations of the complaint as to the liability of the appellants. The trial resulted in a verdict in appellee's favor in the sum of $ 400 against the appellants. Judgment was rendered for that sum in favor of the appellee against appellants, from which is this appeal.

The complaint alleged, and the court will take judicial knowledge, that at the...