Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Adams
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Edward W. Winfield, Judge; - No foundation being laid for its intorduction, the letter of plaintiff’s attorney was erroneously admitted. But if it were properly admitted, and if it could be construed as a notice, it was as such insufficient. The statute only authorizes the giving of notice by the owner.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Edward W. Winfield, Judge; - No foundation being laid for its intorduction, the letter of plaintiff’s attorney was erroneously admitted. But if it were properly admitted, and if it could be construed as a notice, it was as such insufficient. The statute only authorizes the giving of notice by the owner. Kirby’s Digest, § 6644. Being penal in its nature, the statute must be strictfy construed. 67 Ark. 357. That part of the statute requiring notice relates exclusively to the company’s duty to construct or put in the stock guard. It does not apply to that part…
1Opinion of the Court
BatTr®, J.
Dean Adams alleged in his complaint that during the year 1905, and for about one month thereafter, “he was the owner and occupant as a tenant of an inclosed parcel of land in the county of Pulaski, in this State; that the roadbed of the defendant, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, ran through the inclosure, and that the defendant allowed a stockguard on the land to get out of repair, and failed to keep it in repair during the latter part of the year 1905, and the month of January, 1906, and that he gave the defendant notice to repair the guard, which it failed to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hester v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1920