St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company v. Neal

• Decision Date: 24 June 1899
• Citation: 51 S.W. 1060,66 Ark. 543
• Parties: ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY v. NEAL
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

51 S.W. 1060

66 Ark. 543

ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY v. NEAL

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 24, 1899

Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court, JEPTHA H. EVANS, Judge.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The evidence in this case shows that the appellee, a citizen of the city of Van Buren, bought a ticket from the appellant at Van Buren, which entitled him to be carried thence on a local freight train of the appellant to the city of Fort Smith, and the train carried him to within about one mile of the station at Fort Smith and stopped; and that, after waiting some ten minutes, the appellee inquired of the employees on the train if the train would carry him to the station at Fort Smith and was informed that it would not, and that, if he was waiting for that, he had as well go on; that it was dark, and the appellee got out of the car, and walked on toward town and met a street car, which he boarded, and went up town paying street car fare of five cents. That appellee paid fifteen cents for his ticket from Van Buren to Fort Smith.

The appellee recovered a judgment for ten dollars damages, and on his motion the court assessed an attorney's fee of ten dollars against the appellant as costs. The railroad company excepted, and appealed to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

L. F Parker and B. R. Davidson, for appellant.

It was appellee's duty to have informed himself as to where the train would stop. 47 Ark. 74; 45 Ark. 256, 263; 71 Pa.St. 432; 11 Tenn. 533; 38 Kan. 608. It was not necessary for appellant to show actual notice to appellee of the rule. 11 Neb. 177; 38 Ga. 410. A railway company is under no obligations to deliver one who rides on a freight train at a passenger station. 144 Ill. 261, 270; 7 So. 344; 53 Mo.App. 462. It was error to tax the attorney's fee as costs. 21 Ark. 431; 37 Ark. 605; 36 Ark. 191; 42 Ark. 97; 49 Ark. 492.

HUGHES, J., BUNN, C. J., BATTLE, J., did not participate.

OPINION

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

The appellant contends that, unless it appears from the evidence that it was the custom of freight trains on that road to receive and discharge passengers at the platform of the passenger depot, it should not be required of them. Conceding this to be true, it does not follow that appellant was not bound by its undertaking at least to discharge the passenger in the yard of the station, at a place not unreasonably distant from the platform at the station. This, we think, the contract of carriage obliged it to do. Of course, there is always incident to travel on a freight train the delays of frequent stopping and switching, for which they are not liable to passengers. But in this case the appellee was informed by the employees of the company that they would not pull up to the station, and that, if that was what he was waiting for, he had as well go on. Section 6284 Sandels &...