Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Adams
| Decision Date | 15 July 1907 |
| Citation | 106 S.W. 200,84 Ark. 14 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. ADAMS |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Edward W. Winfield, Judge reversed.
Judgment reversed and dismissed.
Buzbee & Hicks, for appellant.
No foundation being laid for its intorduction, the letter of plaintiff's attorney was erroneously admitted. But if it were properly admitted, and if it could be construed as a notice, it was as such insufficient. The statute only authorizes the giving of notice by the owner. Kirby's Digest, § 6644. Being penal in its nature, the statute must be strictly construed. 67 Ark. 357.
W. S McCain, for appellee.
That part of the statute requiring notice relates exclusively to the company's duty to construct or put in the stock guard. It does not apply to that part of the statute requiring it "to keep the same in good repair."
Dean Adams alleged in his complaint that during the year 1905, and for about one month thereafter, "he was the owner and occupant as a tenant of an inclosed parcel of land in the county of Pulaski, in this State; that the roadbed of the defendant, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, ran through the inclosure, and that the defendant allowed a stockguard on the land to get out of repair, and failed to keep it in repair during the latter part of the year 1905, and the month of January, 1906, and that he gave the defendant notice to repair the guard, which it failed to do."
Defendant answered and specifically denied each allegation of the complaint.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $ 75, and the defendant appealed.
The statute upon which this action was based (Kirby's Digest § 6644) makes it the duty of railroad companies to construct stockguards and to keep the same in good repair, upon receiving ten days' notice in writing from the owner of the lands to do so. They are required to construct such guard upon notice given only by the owner of the land. It is evident that notice given by a tenant would not be sufficient. In all cases where there is a tenant there is an owner, and the statute requires the owner to give the notice, and there can be no doubt as to which of the two is the owner. The owner can authorize the tenant to give the notice in his (owner's) name.
Appellee argues that, there being a stockguard already constructed, it is the duty of the railroad...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Osceola Land Co.
...affirmed. W. J. Lamb, for appellant. 1. The rights of the parties were settled on former appeal, by the opinion delivered May 13, 1907. 84 Ark. 14. The only power the chancery court was to enter a decree as directed by this court. 74 Ark. 81-87; 82 Ark. 1; 85 Ark. 414. 2. The court erred in......
-
McIntire v. State
...covered another crime so linked with the one of which appellant was accused as to be inseparable. 8 R. C. L. sec. 195, p. 199; 37 Ark. 261; 84 Ark. 14; 130 Ark. Appellant failed to object to the court's instruction about reaching a verdict. 135 Ark. 499. OPINION SMITH, J. Appellant was conv......
-
Hester v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
...it, this does not show that the guard was unsuitable and unsafe. 74 Ark. 589. Notice from a tenant to repair a stock guard is insufficient. 84 Ark. 14. See, also, 103 Ark. 613. The railroad company was liable for damages where it has failed to erect and maintain fences and cattle guards alo......
-
Hester v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...The giving of this notice is a condition precedent to the right of recovery in an action based on that statute. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Adams, 84 Ark. 14, 106 S. W. 200. Second. The complaint does not state a cause of action under Act 447 of the Acts of 1911, as amended by Act 53 of the A......