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

• Decision Date: 06 December 1909
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HILL
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

123 S.W. 760

92 Ark. 484

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

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 6, 1909

Appeal from Hot Springs Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.

Kinsworthy & Rhoton, Bridges, Wooldridge & Gantt, and Jas. H. Stevenson for appellant.

The uncontradicted evidence is that Ferguson had been discharged by appellant before he discharged appellees. The case should be reversed for misconduct of counsel for appellees. 58 Ark 473; 61 Ark. 130; 62 Ark. 216; 58 Ark. 353; 70 Ark. 305. Improper statements are not cured by withdrawal or admonition. 61 Ark. 138; 63 Ark. 174; 65 Ark. 626; 92 Ind 34; 76 N.W. 462; 123 Ill. 333.

H. B. Means, J. C. Ross and R. S. Bowers, for appellees.

Acts of an agent done after discharge bind both himself and principal, so far as regards third persons who have had no notice of the revocation of his authority. 44 Ia. 519; 74 N.Y. 599; 21 La.Ann. 388; 84 Ill. 39; 128 Mass. 240; 61 Me. 480; 66 Ind. 243; 95 U.S. 48; 49 Ark. 320. Where an objectionable remark made by counsel has been withdrawn, the case will not be reversed therefor. 67 Ark. 365; 71 Ark. 427.

OPINION

HART, J.

This is the second appeal in this case. The former appeal is reported in 83 Ark. 288 under the style of St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Broomfield. The suit was originally brought by section hands of the railway company to recover their wages and the accrued penalty under section 6649 of Kirby's Digest. The judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. A verdict was again returned for the plaintiffs, and the defendant has appealed from the judgment rendered upon the verdict. It is conceded that their wages were paid the plaintiffs at the former trial, and that only the penalties are involved in this suit. In the opinion on the former appeal the court said: "The case turns upon whether Ferguson was competent to discharge these men at the time that they claim he did, and whether the request made of him to have their money sent to the station agent at Malvern brings their case within said section 6629 of Kirby's Digest, entitling them to penalties for not receiving their money within seven days after discharge. If he was foreman at that time, and they made the request, as they testified, they were entitled to their penalties. If he was not, the company was not bound either by his discharge of them or the request of these men to him that their money be sent to them at Malvern."

This is the law applicable to further proceedings in the case. Perry v. Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway Co., 44 Ark. 383; Dyer v. Ambleton, 56 Ark. 170, 19 S.W. 574. There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether plaintiffs knew that the section foreman had been discharged at the time he discharged them; but this evidence becomes immaterial in view of the law as declared by the court on the former appeal, which, as we have already seen, whether right or wrong, is the law of the case. The question, then, is, does the uncontradicted evidence show that the section foreman had himself been discharged before he discharged his crew?

The undisputed testimony shows that Ferguson, the section foreman, received his discharge the 22d day of December 1905, a little before or at 7 o'clock in the morning at the station of the railway company at Malvern, Arkansas, and that at that time he turned over his reports to his successor. The plaintiffs, Harry Hill and Jack Taylor, testified that they were discharged at the tool or section house about 7 o'clock A. M., or a little later on December 22, 1905. The plaintiff Rufus Graham testified that he met...