Legal Opinion

L. R. & Ft. S. Railway v. Holland

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 15, 1883PublishedCited by 8 opinions

APPEAL from Conway Circuit Court. Hon. Gr. S. Cunningham, Special Judge. Touching the question of negligence, there is no evidence whatever on the part of plaintiff. Everything was done that could have been done to save the horse. No power could have stopped the train after the horse got on .the track. L. R. † F. 8. R. v. Henson, 30 Ark.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from Conway Circuit Court. Hon. Gr. S. Cunningham, Special Judge. Touching the question of negligence, there is no evidence whatever on the part of plaintiff. Everything was done that could have been done to save the horse. No power could have stopped the train after the horse got on .the track. L. R. † F. 8. R. v. Henson, 30 Ark. When there is no substantial evidence of what, in law, is recognized as culpable negligence, the Court should direct the jury to find for defendant, or arrest the verdict by non-suit. See authorities cited in our briefs in former cases.

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

In this action for damages for killing a horse, the pleadings admit the killing by the company’s train, but deny negligence. The case bears a striking similarity to Harrison’s ease reported in 39 Ark., 413. A train of sixteen cars was running at night at a speed of twenty miles an hour, on a grade which descendedlat the rate of seventy-five feet to the mile. The engine had a bright head light. An object as large as a man’s body could have been seen one hundred yards ahead on the track, but not much was visible on the side.

There was a bridge, thirty-five feet long, across a small stream. As…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
  2. Johnson v. StewartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
  3. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. LeathersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
  4. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. DingmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
  5. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. WoodworthCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1896

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API