Armstrong v. Pullman Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the circuit court of Hinds county. Hon. W. A. Henry, Judge. Suit by John W. Armstrong, against the Pullman Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. A sleeping car company will be held to the same degree of liability as a common carrier.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the circuit court of Hinds county. Hon. W. A. Henry, Judge. Suit by John W. Armstrong, against the Pullman Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. A sleeping car company will be held to the same degree of liability as a common carrier. Pullman Company v. Laurence, 74 Misp. 782; Pullman Company v. Kelly, 86 Miss. 88; Section 195, Constitution 1890. A sleeping car company cannot refuse to allow a passenger to pay for and occupy a berth simply because that passenger had misplaced his ticket when from all the…
1Opinion of the CourtReed, J.
During the afternoon of March 7, 1911,. in the city of St. Louis, appellant purchased a ticket which entitled him to occupy lower berth No. 6, car No. 103, from St. Louis to Memphis, on the train of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, leaving at eleven twenty p. m: of that day. He boarded the train shortly before it departed. He was unable to produce 'his ticket. He had left it in the pocket of a coat which he was wearing when he purchased it, and which he afterwards took off and packed in his trunk. He explained this to the Pullman conductor, and went to the baggage -car in an effort to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pullman Palace Car Co. v. ReedIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad v. RileyMississippi Supreme Court · 1891
- Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. v. HolmesMississippi Supreme Court · 1897
- Mitchell v. Southern Railway Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1900