St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. v. Burrow
Decision Date | 01 February 1909 |
Citation | 116 S.W. 198,89 Ark. 178 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. v. BURROW |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; Hugh Basham, Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This suit was brought against the railway company to recover for loss of cotton by fire after it had been delivered for shipment.
The answer of the railway company denies that the cotton was delivered to it, or that it agreed to transport it.
There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $ 2,411, and interest from June 20, 1905, at 6 per cent. until paid.
Judgment was accordingly entered, and the cause is here on appeal. The facts necessary to a proper understanding of the assignments of error are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
Thos B. Pryor and Lovick P. Miles, for appellant.
1. There never was a delivery to the carrier. 60 Ark. 338.
2. In the 1st instruction the court invaded the province of the jury, and there is no evidence to sustain the 5th. It was also error to refuse the instruction asked by defendant. 60 Ark. 338; Hutchinson on Carriers, § 125.
3. The testimony of Oates as to custom was not admissible. Hutchinson on Carriers, § 118.
4. No foundation was laid for the introduction of testimony as to the postal card.
Rose Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellee.
1. The evidence conclusively shows delivery to the carrier, and amply supports the verdict.
2. The admission of Oates' testimony was not prejudicial, as the proof was ample.
3. It was shown that the postal card was lost, thus laying proper foundation for parol testimony.
4. There was no invasion of the province of the jury, as the evidence shows that Burrow owned the cotton, which was covered by insurance. No evidence was offered to dispute it. 67 Ark. 154; 79 Id. 356.
5. It is immaterial whether a bill of lading is issued or not. The cotton was offered and placed in the carrier's care with its knowledge and consent, and nothing remained to be done by the shipper. 60 Ark. 388; 69 Id. 157; 75 Id. 102; 79 Id. 356.
OPINIONHART, J., [after stating the facts.]
The first assignment of error is that the court erred in giving instruction No. 5 to the jury. It reads as follows:
"If you find from the evidence that Burrow & Company tendered the cotton to defendant for immediate shipment and deposited the cotton on defendant's platform for loading into cars, and that defendant, through its agents assented to such delivery and received the cotton into its care and custody upon its platform in preparation to loading it into cars for transportation after it had been checked over and bills of lading had been issued for it, then the delivery of the cotton was complete, and it is immaterial whether or not defendant's agents had actually signed the bills of lading for the cotton; and defendant became liable as a common carrier to Burrow & Company for the cotton."
Counsel for appellant contends that there is not a scintilla of evidence upon which to base that part of the instruction that appellant "through its agent, assented to such delivery and received the cotton into its care and custody." The testimony on that point is substantially as follows:
The only reason the agent had not signed the bills of lading was because he had not time to...
To continue reading
Request your trial- American Bauxite Company v. Dunn
-
A. L. Clark Lumber Co. v. St. Coner
... ... 1132 97 Ark. 358 A. L. CLARK LUMBER COMPANY v. ST. CONER Supreme Court of ArkansasJanuary ... In the ... case of St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v ... Rogers, 93 Ark. 564, ... cannot agree with them. In the case of Southern Cotton ... Oil Co. v. Spotts, 77 Ark. 458, 92 ... damages. Railway Co. v. Dobbins, 60 Ark ... 481; St. Louis, I ... ...
-
Burke Construction Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co.
... ... 13 139 Ark. 199 BURKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY ... Iron Mountain railroad and at Chester where a helper ... cause of the derailment * * * the railway company ... would not be responsible therefor." ... 675; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v ... Burrow, 89 Ark. 178 ... It is ... ...
-
Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Remagen
... ... 100] by the undisputed evidence. See St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Burrow, 89 Ark. 178, 116 ... after demand has been made, the insurance company fails to pay the claim within the time specified ... ...