New Orleans Northeastern R. Co. v. Lott
| Decision Date | 24 June 1918 |
| Citation | 118 Miss. 57,79 So. 1 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEW ORLEANS NORTHEASTERN R. CO. v. LOTT |
March 1918
APPEAL from the circuit court of Forest county, HON. PAUL B JOHNSON, Judge.
Suit by Woods Lott against the New Orleans Northeastern Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed.
A. S. Bozeman and Ben F. Cameron, Jr., for appellant.
Tally & Mayson, for appellee.
Appellee instituted this suit in the court below to recover of appellant damages alleged to have been sustained by him because of the breach by appellant of an alleged agreement to deliver to him at Pachuta, Miss., a ticket entitling him to transportation over its road therefrom to Hattiesburg.
John Winston, who testified in behalf of appellant, stated that he delivered to appellant's agent at Hattiesburg the price of two tickets from Pachuta to Hattiesburg, and requested him to have appellant's agent at Pachuta to deliver one of the tickets to appellee and one to Mamie Winston when called for, and that appellant's agent agreed so to do.
According to the evidence for appellee, when he and Mamie called upon appellant's agent at Pachuta for these tickets, the agent delivered one to Mamie, but declined to deliver one to appellee, and stated he had received no request so to do. Mamie accepted her ticket, traveled on it to Hattiesburg, and upon arriving there reported the trouble to John who took the matter up with appellant's agent, and obtained from him a promise to straighten the matter out. Appellee remained in Pachuta overnight, and, upon his again applying to appellant's agent there the next morning for a ticket to Hattiesburg was given one, which he accepted, and traveled thereon to Hattiesburg.
According to the evidence for appellant, the request made of its agent at Hattiesburg by John Winston was for the delivery to Mamie at Pachuta of two tickets from there to Hattiesburg; that when she called therefor both tickets were tendered to her, and she was asked if the other ticket was not for appellee, but stated she did not know, that "she only wanted one ticket for herself."
The contract entered into between appellant's agent at Hattiesburg and John Winston was in writing, signed by both the agent and Winston, and while John admitted signing the contract, he claimed not to have read...
To continue reading
Request your trial