St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Carlisle
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. John N. Tirrman, Judge. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover. 67 Ark. 514; 66 Ark. 439; 53 Ark. 96; 47 Ark. 321; 41 Ark. 161; 40 Ark. 336; 39 Ark. 413. The jury should have been instructed that there was no negligence on the part- of appellant. 13 Oh. St. 66; 77 Mich. 591; 106 N. C. 272; 1 S. W. 790. The question of negligence was properly submitted to the jury. 43 Ark. 229.
1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.
This is an action against the appellant railroad company for negligently killing appellee’s mule. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee. The court gave one general instruction, and it was in entire accord with the statute governing these cases.
At the instance of appellant the court gave ten instructions, and refused three. Those given presented fairly every phase of the appellant’s case which it was entitled to have considered, and some more favorably for it than the law authorized. The first one refused was a peremptory instruction, which ought not to have been given. The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lane v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906