Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith, 13,450

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtWHITFIELD, C. J.
Citation95 Miss. 528,48 So. 735
PartiesMISSISSIPPI OIL COMPANY v. SARAH J. SMITH ET AL
Decision Date15 March 1909
Docket Number13,450

48 So. 735

95 Miss. 528

MISSISSIPPI OIL COMPANY
v.

SARAH J. SMITH ET AL

No. 13,450

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 15, 1909


FROM the circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. ROBERT F. COCHRAN, Judge.

Mrs. Smith and others, appellees, were plaintiffs in the court below; the Mississippi Cotton Oil Company, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

Green & Green for appellant.

Counsel argued the case fully in their brief, citing the following authorities:--

Solomon v. Compress Co., 69 Miss. 326, 10 So. 446, 12 So. 339; Miller v. Wesson, 58 Miss. 834; Railroad Co. v. Davis, 91 Ala. 496; Railway Co. v. Hirsch, 69 Miss. 135, 13 So. 244; Railroad Co. v. Miller, 51 Tex. 274; Buckley v. G. P. & R. M. Co., 113 N.Y. 540; Crowley v. Mills, 148 Mass. 230; Ash v. Verlenden Bros., 154 Pa. St. 249; Ciriack v. Woolen Co., 151 Mass. 156; Borch v. Nut Works, 69 N.W. 254; Ogley v. Miles, 139 N.Y. 458; Lowcock v. Paper Co., 169 Mass. 313; Groth v. Thomann, 110 Wis. 488; Marsden v. Johnson, 89 Ill.App. 102; Natchez Co. v. McLain, 33 So. 723; Nonforton. v. Brick Co., 113 Mich. 39; Coke Co. v. Timilson, 51 S.E. 362; Bender v. Glucose Co., 61 A. 389; Wener v. Trautwein, 61 S.W. 447; Oszkoscil v. Pencil Co., 6 N.Y.S. 502; Bibb v. Taylor, 95 Ga. 615; Probert v. Phipps, 149 Mass. 258; Langlois v. Worsted Mills, 57 A. 910; Becham v. Miller, 47 N. J. L. 14; Railroad Co. v. Cathey, 70 Miss. 237, 12 So. 253; Cudahy v. Marcan, 106 F. 647; Railway Co. v. Dixon, 139 F. 737; Moore v. Johnson, 103 Va. 88; Goraussow v. Manufacturing Co., 186 Mo. 300; Dobson v. State, 67 Miss. 330, 7 So. 327; Railroad Co. v. Humphrey, 83 Miss. 739, 36 So. 154; 2 Labatt on Master & Servant, sec. 833; Fuller v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 104 N.W. 414; Grant v. Railroad Co., 133 N.Y. 657; Goranson v. Manufacturing Co., 186 Mo. 300; Vicksburg v. Hennesey, 54 Miss. 391; Fisk v. Railroad Co., 72 Cal. 38; Michael v. Henry, 58 A. 125; Nudd v. Insurance Co., 25 Minn. 100; Shadoan v. Railroad Co., 82 S.W. 567; Prentiss v. Furniture Co., 63 Mich. 482; Leistritz v. Zylonite Co., 28 N.E. 294; Railway Co. v. Skinner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 661, 23 S.W. 1001; Railroad Co. v. Dial, 58 Ark. 323; Railroad Co. v. Miller, 51 Tex. 274; Youll v. Railroad Co., 66 Ia. 348, 349; Downey v. Sawyer, 157 Mass. 418; O'Keefe v. Thorn, 16 A. 737; Ertz v. Pierson, 130 Mich. 163; Buttle v. Box Co., 175 Mass. 318; McCann v. Mathison, 133 N.Y. 263; White v. Lithographic Co., 131 N.Y. 631, 30 N.E. 236; Hickey v. Taffe, 105 N.Y. 26, 12 N.E. 286; Hettchen v. Chipman, 87 Md. 732; Mueller v. Shoe Co., 84 S.W. 1010; Colb v. Chicago, 33 Ill.App. 488; Engine Works v. Randall, 100 Ind. 293, 298, 300; O'Maley v. Light Co., 158 Mass. 135, 32 N.E. 1119; Nugent v. Kauffman, 33 S.W. 428; Thrasher v. Loring, 2 Smed. & M. 149; McCue v. Stratch Co., 142 N.Y. 106; Jones v. Coal Co., 211 Pa. 577, 578; 4 Thom. Neg. 4095; Diehl v. Oil Co., 57 A. 131; 11 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 137; Railroad Co. v. Mitchell, 52 Miss. 808; French v. Sales, 63 Miss. 386; Myrick v. Wells, 52 Miss. 149; Prine v. State, 73 Miss. 842, 19 So. 711; Haverly v. Railroad Co., 19 A. 1014; Railroad Co. v. McGowan, 62 Miss. 695; Hasie v. Railway Co., 78 Miss. 417, 28 So. 941; Levy v. Holberg, 71 Miss. 66, 14 So. 537; Rippey v. Miller, 62 Am. Dec. 178; Moulton v. Gibbs, 105 Ill.App. 104; Railroad Co. v. Overstreet, 85 Miss. 85, 37 So. 819; Railroad Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 499; Kutchera v. Goodwillie, 93 Wis. 448; Bagnowski v. Linderman, 93 Wis. 592; Dunlap v. Heam, 37 Miss. 471; Dougherty v. Vanderpool, 35 Miss. 165; 11 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 116; Railroad Co. v. White, 82 Miss. 471, 34 So. 331; 15 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, p. 881; Railroad Co. v. Crudup, 63 Miss. 303; Telephone Co. v. Anderson, 89 Miss. 745, 41 So. 263; Colbert v. Railroad Co., 67 A. 446; Railway Co. v. Berry, 102 S.W. 89; Foster v. Railroad Co., 72 Miss. 886; Kamerick v. Castleman, 21 Mo.App. 587; Bernheim v. Dibrell, 66 Miss. 202; Smith v. Team, 16 So. 492; Fetuson v. Brown, 75 Miss. 224; Bulliner v. People, 95 Ill. 394; Robinson v. Craig, 17 Ala. 51; McDonald Iron & Steel Co., 103 N.W. 833; Crammond v. International Paper Co., 101 N.Y.S. 363; Riley v. Rapid Transit Co., 10 Utah 430; Johnson v. Railroad Co., 64 Wis. 425; Post v. Olmstead, 47 Neb. 893; Chicago v. Kimball, 18 Ill.App. 240; Railroad Co. v. Watson, 78 S.W. 176; Railroad Co. v. Ebert, 74 Ill. 399; Telephone Co. v. Anderson, 89 Miss. 743, 41 So. 263; Perkins v. Guy, 55 Miss. 182; Cavanah v. State, 56 Miss. 308; Martin v. State, 63 Miss. 508; Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476; Wolfe v. Minnis, 74 Ala. 386; Proffatt on Jury Trials, § 250; Railway Co. v. Beezley, 101 S.W. 1051; Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N.Y. 135; Johnson v. McNiff, 113 Ill.App. 2.

G. Q. Hall, Hall & Jacobson, for appellee.

Counsel argued the case fully in their brief, citing the following authorities:--Highland Avenue, etc., R. Co. Dusenberry, 98 Ala. 239, 10 So. 274; Maupay v. Holley, 3 Ala. 103; 16 Cyc. 872; Atlanta Cotton Factory v. Speer, 47 Am. Rep. 750; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Slaughter, 45 So. 873; Telephone Co. v. Anderson, 89 Miss. 732, 41 So. 263; Rummell v. Dillsworth Porter & Co., 19 A. 345; Brazill Black Co. v. Gaffney, 4 L. R. A. 850; Marbury L. Co. v. Westbrook, 35 So. 914; Adams v. Bunker Hill, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 844; Schum v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 107 Pa. St. 8; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber, 76 Pa. St. 157; Savage v. R. I. Company, 67 A. 633; 3 Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1698; Pittsburgh C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lightseiser, 78 N.E. 1033; Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Hutchins, 89 S.W. 530; Reynolds v. Narragansett, etc., Co., 59 A. 393; Central Railroad Co. v. Richards, 62 Ga. 307; Richmond & Danville R. Co. v. Garner, 91 Ga. 27; Columbus v. Sims, 94 Ga. 483; Railroad Co. v. Putman, 118 U.S. 545; Coates v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 62 Iowa 486; Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Beauchamp, 93 Ga. 6, 19 S.E. 24; Cartwright v. State, 71 Miss. 85, 14 So. 526; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Rivers, 46 So. 75; Sartorious v. State, 24 Miss. 602; Taylor v. State, 30 So. 657; Mitchell v. McGee & Alford; Crow v. Burgin, 38 So. 625; Noden v. Verlender Bros., 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 367; Rose v. Railway Co., 70 Miss. 725, 12 So. 825; Jones v. Edwards, 57 Miss. 28; Hewlett v. Ragsdale, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885; Railroad Co. v. Chastine, 54 Miss. 503; Express Co. v. Brown, 67 Miss. 260, 7 So. 318; Lagrone v. Railroad Co., 67 Miss. 592, 7 So. 432; Schofield v. Smelting Co., 50 L. R. A. 417; Taylor v. Braddord, 83 Miss. 157, 36 So. 423.

Argued orally by Garner W. Green, for appellant, and by G. Q. Hall, for appellee.

OPINION [48 So. 736]

[95 Miss. 532] WHITFIELD, C. J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiffs, Mrs. Smith, [95 Miss. 533] mother, and her four children, minors, for damages resulting from the killing by the appellant of Willie Mack Smith, the son of the mother, and brother of the minors. The decedent was caught and crushed in the machinery of the appellant, and died some twenty-four hours later, after enduring manifestly very great physical and mental agony. There was a judgment in the court below for $ 10,000 damages, from which this appeal was prosecuted.

Going at once to the vital points in the case, we first take up the alleged error in the admission of the mortuary tables. It will be necessary to deal with this assignment of error in two aspects: First, as regards the pleadings; and, second, as regards the evidence.

First, then, as to the pleadings, the declaration has six counts. Each of these counts closes with specifically enumerated elements of damage, all of which are practically alike, being substantially as follows: "For which pain, suffering, and anguish, mental and physical, and the loss to plaintiffs of his services, support, society, and protection, and the expenses of his last illness and burial," etc., the said plaintiffs sued. It is manifest that there is no specific express claim, therefore, in the declaration, for the recovery of damages, for the present value of the life expectancy of the deceased. This was a perfectly proper element to have been specifically claimed in the declaration. Telephone Co. v. Anderson, 89 Miss. 732, 41 So. 263. It may be correct to say that if the declaration had not specifically enumerated the elements of damage, but had simply declared for damages generally in a certain amount, the plaintiffs could have recovered all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Meridian Amusement Concession Co. v. Roberson, 33973
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1940
    ...Carson v. Leathers, 57 Miss. 650; Gulf R. R. Co. v. Broome, 120 Miss. 632; I. C. Ry. Co. v. Fuller, 106 Miss. 65; Miss. Oil Co. v. Smith, 95 Miss. 528; St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Moore, 101 Miss. 768; Armstrong v. Avair, 247 S.W. 848. Argued orally by E. L. Snow, for appellant, and by Charles S......
  • Gulf Refining Co. v. Miller, 26990
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 26, 1928
    ...former statutes by the Anderson, Moore, Fuller, and Causey cases, supra, and the case of the Miss. Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith, 95 Miss. 529, 48 So. 735, said: "Plaintiffs had a right to recover the present value of the deceased's own life expectancy." See Huff v. Bear Creek Mill Co., 116 Miss.......
  • New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander, 21189
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 1, 1920
    ...value of his own expectancy, these four elements are proper. I. C. Ry. Co., v. Fuller, 63 So. 265; Miss. Oil Co., v. Smith, 95 Miss, 528, 48 So. 735. Even though the instruction as to the measure of damages were erroneous, this would not warrant a reversal of this case. This court has frequ......
  • Hinds v. Moore, 21175
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 15, 1921
    ...also condemned by the case of Railroad Company v. Crudup, 63 Miss. 291; Railroad Company v. White, 82 Miss. 468, and Oil Company v. Smith, 95 Miss. 528. The court erred in giving the first instruction asked by the plaintiff that Judge Moore, Jr., was incapable of contributory negligence. Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Meridian Amusement Concession Co. v. Roberson, 33973
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1940
    ...Carson v. Leathers, 57 Miss. 650; Gulf R. R. Co. v. Broome, 120 Miss. 632; I. C. Ry. Co. v. Fuller, 106 Miss. 65; Miss. Oil Co. v. Smith, 95 Miss. 528; St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Moore, 101 Miss. 768; Armstrong v. Avair, 247 S.W. 848. Argued orally by E. L. Snow, for appellant, and by Charles S......
  • Gulf Refining Co. v. Miller, 26990
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 26, 1928
    ...former statutes by the Anderson, Moore, Fuller, and Causey cases, supra, and the case of the Miss. Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith, 95 Miss. 529, 48 So. 735, said: "Plaintiffs had a right to recover the present value of the deceased's own life expectancy." See Huff v. Bear Creek Mill Co., 116 Miss.......
  • New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander, 21189
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 1, 1920
    ...value of his own expectancy, these four elements are proper. I. C. Ry. Co., v. Fuller, 63 So. 265; Miss. Oil Co., v. Smith, 95 Miss, 528, 48 So. 735. Even though the instruction as to the measure of damages were erroneous, this would not warrant a reversal of this case. This court has frequ......
  • Hinds v. Moore, 21175
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 15, 1921
    ...also condemned by the case of Railroad Company v. Crudup, 63 Miss. 291; Railroad Company v. White, 82 Miss. 468, and Oil Company v. Smith, 95 Miss. 528. The court erred in giving the first instruction asked by the plaintiff that Judge Moore, Jr., was incapable of contributory negligence. Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT