St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Osborn

• Decision Date: 23 January 1900
• Citation: 55 S.W. 142
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. OSBORN.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

55 S.W. 142

ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. OSBORN.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 23, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Hot Springs county; Alexander M. Duffie, Judge.

Action by Thomas H. Osborn against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover for injuries received by plaintiff in being forcibly ejected from the premises of defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought by Thomas H. Osborn against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover damages for injuries which he alleges were occasioned to him by being ejected from its platform and depot at Little Rock, on the 6th day of August, 1894. The plaintiff testified that he had purchased a ticket and was traveling to Benton, Ark. When the train stopped at Little Rock, to permit passengers to get dinner, he stepped upon the platform on his way to the dining room of the restaurant. While on the platform he says that he spoke to another passenger, and was thereupon seized by an employé of defendant, and rudely pulled from the platform and depot. In doing so, plaintiff claims that one of his legs and ankle were injured to such an extent that he still suffers great pain therefrom. The defendant company on the trial admitted that its employés had ejected the plaintiff from the platform, but in justification thereof set up that he was violating a rule of the company forbidding persons to use its premises for the purpose of soliciting for hotels; that, although repeatedly warned of such rule, the plaintiff persisted in soliciting for his hotel at Hot Springs, upon its cars and premises, and for that reason he was, without unnecessary force, ejected from its depot platform. On the trial the jury found in favor of plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $1,000. The circuit court rendered judgment for that sum, and the company appealed.

J. E. Williams and Dodge & Johnson, for appellant. Wood & Henderson, for appellee.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

There is no doubt that the railway company had the right to prohibit soliciting for hotels upon its cars and depot platforms. Landrigan v. State, 31 Ark. 50. But the question as to whether the plaintiff was "soliciting" at the time of his ejection was submitted to the jury, and their finding was in favor of the plaintiff. Although the finding seems to us to be against the preponderance of the evidence, still it has evidence to support it, and, being properly submitted to the jury, the decision of the jury is binding upon us. We...