Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Morrison
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. Joseph W. Maktin, Judge. It was error for the court to premise the instructions with remarks designating them as emanating from the one side or the other. 53 Ark. 118. It was error to refuse appellant’s third prayer for instruction.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. Joseph W. Maktin, Judge. It was error for the court to premise the instructions with remarks designating them as emanating from the one side or the other. 53 Ark. 118. It was error to refuse appellant’s third prayer for instruction. Antecedent negligence of a defendant becomes immaterial when the plaintiff is shown to have been guilty of contributory negligence. 62 Ark. 235; 64 id. 367; id. 420; 65 id. 435. It was also error to give appellee’s second and third instructions. 55 Ark. 393; 51 Ark. 89; 57 Ark. 203; 25 Ark. 490, 493; 30 Ark. 384. ' There was no…
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.
This is an action for damages for injury to a horse, so as to necessitate its killing, and also for injury to a buggy and harness; in which verdict and judgment were for plaintiff in the sum of $250, and defendant appealed.
The plaintiff’s driver was driving his horse to his buggy on the west side of Main .street in Little Rock, between Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth streets, going north, and at the same time defendant’s street ear was approaching from the north, going sonth. The horse began to show some restiveness when within fifty feet of the car, which was moving at a very moderate rate of…
2Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. MorowCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
- Pankey v. Little Rock Railway & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Bunker v. Union Pacific RailroadUtah Supreme Court · 1911
- Anderson v. Bingham & Garfield Ry. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1950
- Sample v. ManningSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.