Rose v. Louisville, N.O. & T.R. Co.

Citation12 So. 825,70 Miss. 725
PartiesELIZA ROSE v. LOUISVILLE, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS RAILWAY CO
Decision Date03 April 1893
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

FROM the circuit court of Washington county, HON. R. W WILLIAMSON, Judge.

Appellant Eliza Rose, a colored woman, brought this action for damages against the Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Company for forcibly ejecting her from the waiting-room for whites at Leland, Mississippi, a station on defendant's railroad. The declaration alleges that defendant failed to provide a suitable and convenient waiting-room for colored people; that plaintiff, being a passenger from Greenville to Anguilla stations on said railroad, was compelled to change cars at Leland, and wait for the south-bound train, which was late that, on alighting from the train, she saw no waiting-room for colored people, and, having applied to the conductor, he showed her where it was, some one hundred and twenty-five yards distant from the station proper, telling her also that she did not have time to go there and walk back, as her train would be due in two or three minutes; that the train however, was late, and did not arrive for some time; that the night was cold and damp, and plaintiff, finding no other suitable place, and having her infant with her, went into and occupied the waiting-room for whites, whereupon, without fault on her part, she was forcibly ejected from said room by defendant's servants, or at their suggestion, and was abused and beaten.

The defendant, after demurrer overruled, pleaded not guilty, and the cause proceeded to trial. It is not deemed necessary to set out the evidence. The plaintiff introduced some testimony to support all the material allegations in the declaration. It was shown that the waiting-room for colored people was in a separate building, about one hundred and twenty-five yards from the main station and usual stopping-place of passenger-trains at Leland, and there was some testimony that it was little used, and that on the night in question it was not provided with a fire. There was evidence that plaintiff was ejected by the marshal of Leland, a peace-officer, but there was also evidence tending to show that in so doing he was acting at the suggestion of the employes of the defendant.

The instructions granted for defendant, which are passed on in the opinion, are as follows:

1. "The court instructs the jury that the plaintiff in this cause can only recover such damages as she has, by the evidence produced before them, shown that she has sustained; and that if plaintiff has failed to prove that she has sustained either actual or possible damages, they will find for the defendant.

3. "The court instructs the jury that the marshal of Leland was an officer of the law, and, as such, was authorized to remove plaintiff from the waiting-room provided and set apart at that place, by defendant, for white people, if they believe from the evidence that the defendant, in January, 1890, had provided and set apart separate and suitable rooms for the white and colored races at Leland, and that plaintiff was a colored woman; and that the defendant is not liable in damages because of the removal of plaintiff from the waiting-room set apart for white people by said officers, and her subsequent arrest.

4. "The court instructs the jury that although they may believe from the evidence that the defendant failed to provide suitable and convenient waiting-rooms for passengers at Leland, the plaintiff cannot recover damages therefor beyond or more than they believe she has shown by the evidence that she has sustained; and that, if plaintiff has failed to prove that she has sustained damages, they will find for the defendant, unless they believe from the evidence she is entitled to punitory damages.

5. "The court instructs the jury that, although they may believe from the evidence that the waiting-room at Leland provided and set apart by the defendant for colored people was not as convenient as that provided for white people, yet, that they did not authorize plaint...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Aultman
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 22 d1 Março d1 1937
    ...173 So. 280 179 Miss. 109 YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY R. Co. v. AULTMAN No. 32655Supreme Court of MississippiMarch 22, 1937 ... liability. This court has repeatedly so held ... Louisville, ... etc., R. Co. v. Daniels, 135 Miss. 41; Brinkley ... v. So. R. Co., ... ...
  • Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 15 d1 Março d1 1909
    ...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 Ragsdale, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885; Railroad Co. v. Chastine, 54 Miss. 503; Express ......
  • Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith, 13,450
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 15 d1 Março d1 1909
    ...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 Ragsdale, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885; Railroad Co. v. Chastine, 54 Miss. 503; Express ......
  • Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Bond
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 7 d1 Março d1 1938
    ... ... 741, 181 Miss. 254 GULF & S. I. R. Co. v. BOND et al No. 33050 Supreme Court of Mississippi March 7, 1938 ... whole case ... Murray ... v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 188 Miss. 513, 151 So. 913 ... There ... was no ... ...
  • 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