Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Daniels

• Decision Date: 05 May 1900
• Citation: 56 S.W. 874
• Parties: LITTLE ROCK & FT. S. RY. CO. v. DANIELS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 874

56 S.W. 874

LITTLE ROCK & FT. S. RY. CO. v. DANIELS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 5, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Crawford county; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge.

Action by A. E. Daniels against the Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway Company. From a judgment of the circuit court, on appeal from the justice court, in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Dodge & Johnson and Oscar L. Miles, for appellant. J. E. Cravens, for appellee.

BATTLE, J.

A. E. Daniels commenced an action against the Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway Company, before a justice of the peace of Crawford county, to recover damages caused by the killing of his cow. He recovered a judgment, and the defendant appealed to the Crawford circuit court, and he recovered judgment against the company in the latter court for $35.

The issues in the case were tried and the judgment was recovered upon the following agreed statement of facts:

"It is agreed: That the Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway is a railway corporation organized under the laws of the state of Arkansas, and that the Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway owns a line of railroad extending from Little Rock, Ark., to Ft. Smith, Ark., and through Crawford county. That the animal herein sued for was killed by the operation of a train on the line of said road, under such circumstances as to make the company operating the train liable to plaintiff for the amount sued for.

"That the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Arkansas, and that it owns various lines of railroad in the state of Arkansas. That on the 1st day of January, 1890, the Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway leased its aforesaid line of road regularly and lawfully to the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company for the term of fifty years. * * *

"It is admitted that since the 1st day of January, 1890, the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company has operated the lines of railroad known as the Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway, and that at the time of the injury herein complained of it was operated by the employés of the said St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company.

"It is admitted that the Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway corporation is still in existence, but has not been engaged in operating its line of road since the aforesaid 1st day of January, 1890; that the animal killed was the property of the plaintiff, and of the value sued for."

According to this statement of facts, the judgment was improperly rendered against the Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway Company. That company was empowered by the statutes of this state to lease its road, with all the property, rights, privileges, and franchises thereto pertaining. Sand. & H. Dig. §§ 6321, 6338. In the exercise of this power, it leased to the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company its railway, extending from its terminal point, in the town of Argenta, to Ft. Smith, in this state, together with all the branch roads and sidings, depots, stations, buildings, equipments, machine and other shops, machinery, tools, appurtenances, and property, real and personal, to the demised road belonging and appertaining. After this it was not responsible for injuries caused by the negligence of its lessee in the operation of trains on its railway, or in the omission of any statutory duty connected with the management of the road, — matters over which it had no control. We are aware that there is a wide diversity of opinion upon this subject. But we think that the weight of authority and reason sustain the view we have expressed. In granting the authority to lease, the statutes empowered it to transfer the possession and control of the demised property, together with the duty of operating the road, to the lessee, to the exclusion of the lessor; and this transfer carried with it to the lessee the responsibility for injuries caused by its negligence in the discharge of such duty, and exonerated the lessor from the same. The authorities which hold to the contrary do so upon the ground that the legislature must expressly exempt the lessor from responsibility in order to exonerate him from liability. They concede that the legislature may by express enactment exonerate the lessor, and, in the absence of such enactment, they limit the effect of the lease when the legislature or the parties have not done so. They grant the right to a railway company to relinquish control of its railroad under the authority vested in it by ...