St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Mendenhall
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District. Styles L. Rowe, Judge. statement by the court. This is a suit to recover a penalty, under §§ 6238, 6239, of Sandels & Hill’s Digest.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District. Styles L. Rowe, Judge. statement by the court. This is a suit to recover a penalty, under §§ 6238, 6239, of Sandels & Hill’s Digest. They are as follows: “It shall be the duty of all railroad companies organized under the laws of this state, which have constructed, or may hereafter construct, a railroad which may pass through or upon any enclosed lands of another, whether such lands were enclosed at the time of the construction of such railroad or were enclosed thereafter, upon receiving ten days’ notice in writing from the owner of…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts.) Appellant seeks the reversal of a judgment against it for $25:(1) Because the proof of service of the notice to construct a cattle guard was insufficient. The indorsement purporting to be the certificate of the sheriff, by his deputy, on the back of the notice, showing that he had served the same, was no proof of the service of the notice. Kansas City, P. & G. Ry. Co. v. Lowther, 68 Ark. 238; Kansas City, P. & G. Ry. Co. v. Pirtle Id., 548. This certificate did not affect the question of the service of the notice one way or the other. But the plaintiff…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railway Co. v. LowtherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
3Cited by2 opinions
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. HaleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. GreerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909