Clisby v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Clay county. Hon. Charles H. Campbell, Special Judge. Clisby, who sued for the use of the Home Insurance Company, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. In view of the conflict of the evidence on the most material issues in the case, it was essential there should be no errors of law in the instructions to the jury.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Clay county. Hon. Charles H. Campbell, Special Judge. Clisby, who sued for the use of the Home Insurance Company, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. In view of the conflict of the evidence on the most material issues in the case, it was essential there should be no errors of law in the instructions to the jury. Ohapmcm v. Copeland, 55 Miss., 476. This was not only not done, but the instructions themselves are in hopeless conflict. By the third instruction for…
1Opinion of the Court
Leftwich, Special J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action by C. B. Clisby for the use of the Home Insurance Company against the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company to recover the value of 472 bales of cotton destroyed by fire March 6, 1899, in the sheds and grounds of the compress company, situated within the corporate limits of West Point, Mississippi. The gist of plaintiff’s action is stated in its amended declaration as follows: “That on said day defendant so negligently operated its locomotive passing along said tracks, and when in close proximity to said baled cotton, as to…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Reardon v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Williams v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. Van Os & ShusterMississippi Supreme Court · 1886
- Skates v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1887
- Carroll v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Warwick v. MatheneyMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- Four-County Electric Power Ass'n v. ClardyMississippi Supreme Court · 1954
- Heidelberg v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1991
- Danner v. Mid-State Paving Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1965
- Bufkin v. Louisville N.R. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1931
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.