James v. James
| Decision Date | 11 November 1893 |
| Citation | 23 S.W. 1099,58 Ark. 157 |
| Parties | JAMES v. JAMES |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court, JOHN B. MCCALEB, Judge.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Appellee filed his complaint before a justice of the peace, alleging that he, as constable, had levied a writ of attachment upon 2064 pounds of seed cotton, which he delivered to appellant upon contract to gin the same immediately; that appellant neglected to gin said cotton according to agreement, and that, by reason of such failure, same was burned. He prays judgment for $ 56.70, and obtains verdict and judgment for that amount, from which appellant appeals.
Appellee testified that he delivered the cotton levied upon, under an order of the court, to the appellant under a special contract that he, appellant, would gin the same on the following Monday, the cotton being delivered on Saturday; that the appellant neglected to gin same on Monday; that on Tuesday he went to the gin to mark the cotton and roll it off the yard but it had not been ginned; that on Thursday following the cotton was burned; and that it was worth $ 56.70. This was all the evidence on behalf of appellee as to the contract and all that is necessary to state in order to understand the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
J. C Hawthorne for appellant.
P. H. Crenshaw for appellee.
WOOD, J., (after stating the facts.)
The theory upon which a recovery is sought in this case is presented by the complaint, the testimony of appellee, and the following instruction given by the court upon its own motion: "The jury are instructed that if they believe, from a preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiff, while acting as constable, delivered to the defendant or his agent the cotton in controversy under a contract that the defendant would gin it by a certain time, and that the defendant negligently failed or refused to gin said cotton as agreed and that the same was thereby destroyed, they would be authorized to find for the plaintiff."
No causal relation is shown between the failure of appellant to comply with his contract to gin, and the fire, which was the direct cause of the loss of the cotton. The appellee does not seek recovery upon the ground that the bailee for hire did not use ordinary care in the preservation of the cotton, or that he negligently destroyed it. The rule of law founded in justice and common sense, and of universal application, as expressed in the maxim, "Causa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemos v. Madden
...means, and in no way arising from or connected with the neglect of the defendant to furnish transportation." In the case of James v. James, 58 Ark. 157, 23 S.W. 1099, defendant failed to gin cotton at the time agreed on, during the delay the cotton burned. The court said: "True, we might sa......
-
Collier v. Newport Water, Light and Power Co.
...71 Tenn. 42; 22 S.W. 277; 88 Tex. 233. Failure to furnish water was not the proximate cause of loss. 55 Ark. 510; 139 223; 133 Id. 387; 58 Ark. 157; 65 Ark. OPINION KIRBY, J., (after stating the facts). The great, not to say overwhelming, weight of authority is against the right of appellan......
-
Rhoads v. Service Machine Company
...not actionable. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 139 U.S. 223, 11 S.Ct. 554, 35 L.Ed. 154; James v. James, 58 Ark. 157, 23 S.W. 1099; Martin v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 55 Ark. 510, 19 S.W. 314. Concepts of negligence and proximate cause presuppose a duty......
-
Rodgers v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... v. Pritchett, 84 Ala. 512, 4 So. 601. (Delay in ... executing order to sell cotton--loss by fire.) James v ... James, 58 Ark. 157, 23 S.W. 1099. (Failure to gin cotton ... promptly--destruction by fire.) Rodgers v. C. P. R. R ... Co., 67 Cal ... ...