Kizer v. Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company
Decision Date | 15 April 1899 |
Citation | 50 S.W. 871,66 Ark. 348 |
Parties | KIZER v. TEXARKANA & FORT SMITH RAILWAY COMPANY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Little River Circuit Court WILL P. FEAZEL, Judge.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This is an action to recover from the railway company an amount which the appellant alleges was exacted of and paid by him for freights on lumber, which he shipped over appellant's road, in excess of the amount stipulated for by him in a contract made by him with the appellee, which contract is as follows, to-wit:
Exhibit B to the complaint is an itemized account showing an overcharge, commencing January 12, 1893, and ending December 27, 1894, on 346 cars of lumber, and the entire amount of these overcharges was $ 1,304.15. Summons was issued December 20, 1895.
To the foregoing complaint, an amendment was filed setting forth 146 similar overcharges that were made during the year 1895, and amounting to the sum of $ 566.23.
The defendant's answer denied that it executed the written contract, Exhibit "A" to the complaint, and alleged the same was not its act and deed. It denied that it overcharged the plaintiff upon his said shipments in the sum of 2 cents per hundred or in any amount, and averred that it never charged plaintiff anything except the usual, customary and reasonable rates. That, if said Whitaker ever executed said contract, it was without authority from defendant or its board of directors, and was ultra vires and an illegal act on the part of said Whitaker; that the rate mentioned in said contract was less than the established and reasonable regular rates charged by the defendant for similar services, and that the defendant's regular tariff rates were and are, in all respects, reasonable, and the rate mentioned in said contract was unreasonable, and would constitute an unlawful discrimination against the rest of the public; all of said traffic being interstate, and said contract is void and incapable of enforcement. This answer was verified by W. A Williams, who stated therein that he was the general manager and authorized agent of the defendant, and that he believed the averments therein to be true.
To this answer, an amendment was filed which alleged that the defendant's line of railway between Rankin and Texarkana is an interstate line of road, its portion north of Red River being in Little River county, Arkansas, and the portion south of Red River being in Bowie county, Texas, and all shipments from Rankin to Texarkana are interstate shipments. It denied that it demanded, or that plaintiff paid it, any amount by reason of the shipments mentioned in the original or amended complaint, except what was justly and legally due the defendant, etc.
The facts, as found by the court, sitting as a jury, are as follows, to-wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peay v. Pulaski County
...323. It is elementary law that illegal contracts can not be enforced, and certainly they can not be enforced by the State or county. 66 Ark. 348; Id. 533; Id. 190; 67 Ark. 480; 77 Ark. 63 Ark. 318; 40 Ark. 488; 51 Ark. 519; 46 Ark. 420; 52 Ark. 178; 26 Ark. 160; 29 Ark. 386; 81 Ark. 41-48. ......
-
Haurigan v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.
...Co. v. Dumas (Tex. Civ. App.) 43 S. W. 609;Bullard v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 10 Mont. 168, 25 Pac. 120, 11 L. R. A. 246;Kizer v. Texarkana R. Co., 66 Ark. 348, 50 S. W. 871;Myar v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 71 Ark. 552, 76 S. W. 557;Southern R. Co. v. Wilcox, 99 Va. 394, 39 S. E. 144;Ward v. ......
-
American Acc. & Life Ins. Co. v. American Pioneer Life Ins. Co., 5--4954
...v. Randle, 63 Ark. 318, 38 S.W. 343, 36 L.R.A. 174; Hanauer v. Gray, 25 Ark. 350; Tucker v. West, 29 Ark. 386; Kizer v. Texarkana & F.S. Ry. Co., 66 Ark. 348, 50 S.W. 871.' An even closer parallel is found in Bourland, Mayor v. First National Bank Building Co., 152 Ark. 139, 237 S.W. 681. T......
-
Haurigan v. Chigago & Northwestern Railway Company
... ... Northern P. R. Co., 10 ... Mont. 168, 25 P. 120; Kizer v. Texarkana & Ft. S. R ... Co., 66 Ark. 348, 50 S.W. 871; Myar v. St ... ...