Legal Opinion

Hill v. St. Louis Southwestern Railroad

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 3, 1900PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court. The initial carrier could not be forced to deliver the goods beyond its own line. 64 Ark. 115; 63 Ark. 326; 39 Ark. 148; ih. 529; 40 Ark. 375. Hence the initial carrier’s stipulation against liability beyond its own line is valid. 63 Ark. 330; 47 Ark. 103; 44 Ark. 209; 52 Ai’k. 30; 35 Ark. 402. If appellee had been merely an agent of the initial carrier, the exemptions in the latter’s contract might apply. 50 Ark. 397; 39 Ark. 148, 154; 18…

Read the full summary

Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court. The initial carrier could not be forced to deliver the goods beyond its own line. 64 Ark. 115; 63 Ark. 326; 39 Ark. 148; ih. 529; 40 Ark. 375. Hence the initial carrier’s stipulation against liability beyond its own line is valid. 63 Ark. 330; 47 Ark. 103; 44 Ark. 209; 52 Ai’k. 30; 35 Ark. 402. If appellee had been merely an agent of the initial carrier, the exemptions in the latter’s contract might apply. 50 Ark. 397; 39 Ark. 148, 154; 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 590. But, as consideration to support any exemption from liability, the initial carrier would have…

1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.

This is a suit by the appellants here against the defendant railway company, the appellee here, for the loss of a car load of grain alleged to have been worth $250. The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts and some additional testimony, and by the court sitting as a jury. The court found for defendant, and rendered judgment accordingly, to which plaintiffs excepted, and appealed to this court.

There is a variance between the declaration and the bill of lading upon which the grain was shipped, but the plaintiff contends that the bill of lading is effectual only as between the initial…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Southern Railway Co. v. BarclayAlabama Court of Appeals · 1911
  2. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. AltmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  3. Hanger & Maxfield v. Bloomington, Decatur & Champaign Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API