Railway Co. v. Shoecraft
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court. Tlie Little Rock & Memphis Railway Company lias appealed from a judgment against it in favor of George Shoecraft for the value of certain stock killed by the negligencé of its train-men. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The suppressed, portions of the depositions were statements of facts and not opinions, and clearly competent. 31 A. &. E- R. Cases, 539 ; 11 Ohio St. 333. The court properly suppressed the depositions.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court. Tlie Little Rock & Memphis Railway Company lias appealed from a judgment against it in favor of George Shoecraft for the value of certain stock killed by the negligencé of its train-men. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The suppressed, portions of the depositions were statements of facts and not opinions, and clearly competent. 31 A. &. E- R. Cases, 539 ; 11 Ohio St. 333. The court properly suppressed the depositions. They were merely opinions. 31 A. & E. R. Cases, 539. Even if their opinions were admissible as expert evidence, no foundation…
1Opinion of the CourtCockriee, C. J.
1. When ‘opinion evidence admis-
A witness’ opinion is admissible as evidence, not only where scientific knowledge is required to comprehend the matter testified ' about, but also where experience and observation in the special calling of the witness give him knowledge of the subject in question beyond that of persons of common intelligence. Transportation Line v. Hope, 95 U. S. 297.
We have held that fariqers residing* in the neighborhood of a farm over which a railway is located, who are acquainted with the property, may give opinions as to* the amount of damages the owner has sustained by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Transportation Line v. HopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railroad v. AndersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Railway Co. v. BruceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Hoxie v. . AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
3Cited by4 opinions
- Prickett v. Sulzberger & Sons Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Texas Pacific Railway Company v. WarnerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. McCombsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Dardanelle Pontoon Bridge & Turnpike Co. v. CroomSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910