Skipwith v. Mobile Ohio Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 12 April 1909
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JESSE SKIPWITH v. MOBILE OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY

48 So. 964

95 Miss. 50

JESSE SKIPWITH v. MOBILE OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 12, 1909

March 1909

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

Skipwith appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, predicated of a peremptory instruction, the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.

Plaintiff sued for damages to his horses and wagon suffered on a highway at a railroad crossing. In order to effect a grade crossing with the track of the defendant company the highway had been raised several feet above the surrounding lands, and for several yards from the railroad track it was too narrow for a horse and wagon to be turned back thereon. On either side of the highway there were trees obstructing a view of the curved railroad track. Plaintiff, accompanied by his two daughters, had driven his team, attached to his wagon, along the highway and was very near the railroad crossing when according to his testimony, without prior warning, so far as they heard, from bell or whistle, or otherwise, an approaching engine and tender attached to a caboose ran rapidly around the curve of the railroad track, frightening the horses so that they became unmanageable on the narrow elevated highway. Plaintiff testified that he used every effort, but was unable to hold the terrified animals, and as they dashed forward across the track the engine struck them and the wagon, killing one of the horses, seriously maining the other and demolishing the wagon. The plaintiff

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

OPINION

FLETCHER, J.

This case, as made by the declaration, pleas, and proof, presents the question on liability of the members of a voluntary association for an obligation of the association, evidenced by a promissory note signed by the members; the signature being followed by certain abbreviations indicating the offices which they held in the association. That the members signing such a note are individually liable is thoroughly well settled. The case of Lawler v. Murphy, 58 Conn 294, 20 A. 457, 8 L. R. A. 113, is precisely in point. That case holds that the individual members are liable for the contracts of the association, without regard to the question as to what was intended by the members in regard to liability, and despite the fact that the members mistook the...