St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Leder Bros.

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Hill
• Citation: St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Leder Bros., 95 S.W. 170 (Ark. 1906)
• Decision Date: 14 May 1906
• Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. v. LEDER BROS.

95 S.W. 170

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. v. LEDER BROS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 14, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Prairie County; George M. Chapline, Judge.

Action by Leder Bros. against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

S. H. West and J. C. Hawthorne, for appellant. Eugene Lankford, Thomas C. Trimble, Joe T. Robinson, and T. C. Trimble, Jr., for appellee.

HILL, C. J.

Leder Bros. sued the railroad company for damages for failure to furnish cars on demand. The first paragraph of the complaint alleged that, in the month of December, 1903, they demanded 30 cars for lumber and hay which they had for shipment, and the company only furnished one car to them, while furnishing to other shippers cars at the same station, and alleged damage in the sum of $1,000. The second paragraph alleged that in November and December, 1903, they offered the railroad 60 car loads of freight and demanded cars, and the company failed and refused to furnish them, while furnishing others. After alleging matters of damage, this paragraph proceeds: "That on account of the company's refusal to take said freight for shipment, or furnish cars for shipping said hay and lumber, plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of $1,000, and under the law are entitled to double the amount, or $2,000 damages. Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant company in the sum of $2,000 damages and all their costs herein." The first paragraph did not have a specific prayer for judgment, but did allege damages in the sum of $1,000 for the matters therein set forth. The railroad company filed petition and bond for removal to the federal court, alleging requisite diversity of citizenship, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $2,000. The appellees thereafter asked leave of the court to amend the complaint by making it more definite and certain in setting forth that only $1,000 was asked. The court permitted this and refused the removal. The railroad insists that the complaint showed a demand for $1,000 in one paragraph and $2,000 in the other, and that the amendment reduced the claim to $2,000 after the petition and bond were filed. The appellee contends that the complaint is not susceptible of that construction, and that it only asks for $2,000.

The case must be reversed on the instructions, and the court does not consider it necessary to discuss this question, but refers counsel to...