St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Harden

• Decision Date: 17 June 1907
• Citation: 103 S.W. 614,83 Ark. 255
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HARDEN
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

103 S.W. 614

83 Ark. 255

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

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 17, 1907

Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; A. M. Duffie, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

In November 1905 D. C. Harden moved with his family from Waco Texas, to Hot Springs, Arkansas. When they arrived at Texarkana, they took passage from there to Hot Springs over the defendant's railway.

Idessa Harden, a daughter of plaintiff, who at that time was not quite eighteen years of age, was an invalid, and D. C Harden, her father, undertook to carry her in his arms from the train to the waiting room of the depot at Benton Arkansas, where they changed cars for Hot Springs. It was about eight o'clock at night, and, while crossing the platform with his daughter in his arms on his way to the waiting room, he stepped into a hole in the platform, causing him to fall, with the result that he and his daughter were both injured. Each of them brought an action against the company to recover damages. When the cases came up for trial the plaintiffs in the two cases filed a motion to consolidate the two cases, and the court entered an order consolidating the two cases "for the purposes of this trial." The defendant objected to this order, and saved its exceptions.

The two cases were then tried together, and the jury returned a verdict in each case for the plaintiff, as follows:

"We the jury find for the plaintiff D. C. Harden in the sum of fifteen hundred ($ 1500) dollars. J. J. Steed, foreman."

"We the jury find for the plaintiff Idessa Harden in the sum of seven hundred ($ 700) dollars. J. J. Steed, foreman."

Judgment was rendered in each case accordingly, and the defendant appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

T. M. Mehaffy and J. E. Williams, for appellant.

Wood & Henderson, for appellees.

The act clearly authorizes a consolidation where cases are of like nature or relative to the same question. It does not restrict the consolidation to cases where the plaintiffs are the same, and when the Legislature makes no exceptions the courts can not. 46 Ark. 37. And it was within the discretion of the court to order the consolidation of the cases for trial under the act. 145 U.S. 293.

OPINION

RIDDICK, J., (after stating the facts.)

We do not find any error in the trial of these cases, and the only question requiring notice relates to order of the court consolidating the cases for the purposes of the trial.

Our statute provides that "when causes of action of like nature or relative to the same question are pending before any of the circuit or chancery courts of this State, the court may make such orders and rules concerning the proceedings therein as may be conformable to the usages of courts for avoiding unnecessary costs and delay in the administration of justice, and may consolidate said causes when it appears reasonable to do so." Act of May 11, 1905.

We are of the opinion that under this provision of the law it was within the discretion of the court to consolidate these two cases for the purpose of the trial. Where the parties to the actions are not the same, it may not be quite accurate to speak of such an order as a consolidation of the two cases. 8 Cyc. 597.

Where either the plaintiffs or defendants...