St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Moss

• Decision Date: 08 April 1905
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. MOSS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

86 S.W. 828

75 Ark. 64

ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. MOSS

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 8, 1905

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court, Western District, ALLEN HUGHES Judge.

Affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This suit was before a justice of the peace, in Clay County, upon the following complaint:

"The plaintiff for his cause of action against the defendant states that the defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the law of the State of Missouri, and owning and operating a railroad through the County of Clay, in the State of Arkansas; that on the 15th of July, 1901, this plaintiff placed upon the sidetrack of the said defendant at Aver switch, a sidetrack of the said railroad company, in the county and State, a carload of heading bolts to be shipped by the defendant to Poplar Bluff, Mo.; that, as soon as he had placed said heading bolts at the switch aforesaid, he made verbal demand upon J. B. Price, agent of the said defendant on the 20th day of July, 1901, at Moark, Ark., the nearest station to the switch aforesaid, and daily thereafter, and made verbal demand about the same time of Hunter and Ray, two conductors, operating a local freight train of the defendant on the division of the said road in which said switch is located, for a suitable car to ship the heading bolts, and wrote the train-master two or three letters; that said defendant failed, neglected and refused to furnish the car aforesaid to this plaintiff, though often requested by him so to do for the period of fifty days; that said company negligently failed to furnish car aforesaid; that this plaintiff loaded the said bolts in the car that had been ordered by some one else, and, after the said bolts were loaded, the car was negligently permitted to stand upon the sidetrack for the period of five days thereafter. Plaintiff states that, by reason of negligence of the defendant aforesaid in failing to furnish the car aforesaid, and in delaying of shipment of the said bolts, the said bolts deteriorated in value to his great damage in the sum of $ 50. Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment for $ 50 and proper relief."

From the judgment rendered in the justice of the peace court against this appellant an appeal was taken to the circuit court.

In the circuit court the defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint, stating that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which, being submitted to the court, was by the court overruled, and defendant,...