Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Haynes
| Decision Date | 11 April 1887 |
| Citation | 1 So. 765,64 Miss. 604 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. J. H. HAYNES |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Attala County, HON. C. H. CAMPBELL Judge.
This is an action for damages brought by J. H. Haynes against the Illinois Central Railroad Company for a failure to deliver a certain carload of cattle in New Orleans in a reasonable time after shipment. It appears that plaintiff shipped a carload of cattle by defendant's road from Kosciusko to New Orleans; that the train on which they were shipped was delayed twenty-four hours on the road because of being overloaded and the engine getting out of repair; that the cattle suffered for want of food and water, which resulted in loss to plaintiff by a decrease in the value of the cattle. The plaintiff contended that he twice tried to get the conductor of the train to side-track the car containing his cattle so that he could feed and water them. This the defendant denied, and on this point the evidence was conflicting.
On the trial the defendant introduced evidence which tended to show that the delay was unavoidable because of an unusual press of business, it being at the time of the year when the World's Exposition of 1884 was being held in New Orleans.
The plaintiff introduced as a witness one Woods, who testified in his behalf. On cross-examination the defendant asked him if he had not also sued defendant for damages done to his cattle shipped on the same train with plaintiff's cattle. This question he answered in the affirmative. On his re-direct examination the witness, in reply to a question, said that defendant had settled with him for the damages claimed by him in his suit against defendant. To this question and the answer thereto the defendant objected, but the objection was overruled.
The defendant introduced as a witness in its behalf one Ryan, a conductor in its employ. On cross-examination he was asked "Did you not state to plaintiff in a conversation about this case, about one month ago, between McComb City and New Orleans, that you and other employees of the defendant had to tell a favorable tale, the best you could, in order to hold your job." To this he replied, "I did not." The defendant objected to both the question and the answer but the court overruled the objection.
The defendant having closed its evidence, the plaintiff testified in rebuttal that Ryan had told him at the time and under the circumstances set out substantially what is embodied in the question above quoted.
The court gave among other instructions for the plaintiff one as follows:
The effect of other instructions necessary to be known is stated in the opinion of the court.
The verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
W. P. & J. B. Harris, for the appellant.
1. The plaintiff was not entitled to interest as matter of law and right on his damages, and the instruction on this point is mandatory.
2. The court should have explained to the jury that mere delay in delivery, though injurious to the cattle, would not entitle the plaintiff to recover if these delays were excusable. The principle is too well settled to call for argument or authority that the carrier does not insure as to time, and that the question as to reasonableness is made up of the conditions which excuse delay. The instruction upon this subject is misleading.
3. The court erred certainly in permitting Woods to testify that "his damages had been paid to him" for the same alleged cause. If the answer had fallen from the witness when the defendant's counsel asked if he had not sued defendant the court should have excluded it, but waiving that, it was gross error to allow the witness to state that the company had paid him his damages on a re-direct examination.
It is not more allowable to permit such evidence on a "re-direct" examination than it would have been on the direct examination. Let it be conceded for argument's sake that if the witness had said on the cross-examination, "Yes, I had a controversy with the company, but we settled it and they paid me," the defendant would not complain, as he had drawn the answer out. He would have been held to abide by the consequences of his question, and it might be said that the company compromised; but the matter assumes a different shape when he is allowed to state for the party calling him that the company had paid him his damages.
4. In allowing the evidence of what conductor Ryan had said about the constraint under which he and other witnesses testified we think it very clear the court below committed a grave error. The principal issue was one of veracity, and this evidence tended...
To continue reading
Request your trial