New Orleans & Northeastern R. R. v. Reese
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County. Hon. Samuel H. Terral, Judge. E. E. Eeese brought an action of trespass against the appellant railroad company to recover the statutory damages of fifteen dollars per tree for seventy-nine trees alleged to have been cut and taken by the company from his land without his permission. Eeese obtained a judgment in tiie lower court, from which the railroad company appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County. Hon. Samuel H. Terral, Judge. E. E. Eeese brought an action of trespass against the appellant railroad company to recover the statutory damages of fifteen dollars per tree for seventy-nine trees alleged to have been cut and taken by the company from his land without his permission. Eeese obtained a judgment in tiie lower court, from which the railroad company appeals. The determining question in the case was whether one Kamper, who cut the trees in controversy, was in so doing acting as the servant or agent of the railroad company or was…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
The important question in this case is, whether Kamper was the servant of the appellant or an independent contractor. If he was a mere employe and servant, the appellant was liable for his wrongful act in taking trees from the land of the appellee. If he was a contractor engaged in his own business under the contract and pursuing his own methods in procuring the materials he was to furnish, the appellant was not responsible for his acts. The evidence contained in the record makes it very doubtful what was the relation sustained by Kamper to the appellant. That Mulholland was an independent…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Indiana Iron Co. v. CrayIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
- Waters v. Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Vacker v. YeagerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1909
- Waters v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- The StudentCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1917