Haas v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court. Charles W. Smith, Judge. Instruction No. 2. was erroneous. When the agent took charge of the telescope for the purpose of forwarding it to its destination, the company became responsible. 6 Cyc. 414c. But the liability of the company commenced when the conductor accepted the goods for transportation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court. Charles W. Smith, Judge. Instruction No. 2. was erroneous. When the agent took charge of the telescope for the purpose of forwarding it to its destination, the company became responsible. 6 Cyc. 414c. But the liability of the company commenced when the conductor accepted the goods for transportation. It was, therefore, error to refuse instruction No. 4 asked by plaintiff. 60 Ark. 338; 6 Cyc. 431. The court will not disturb the finding of the jury on a question of fact where there is any evidence to sustain it. 48 Ark. 495; 51 Ark. 467; 57 Ark. 577. It was…
1Opinion of the Court
Battle J.
A. Haas & Son, on April 13, 1903, commenced an action against the Louisiana & Arkansas Railway .Company to recover the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars, alleging that their .traveling salesman, J. E. Whitesides, delivered to the defendant at Alberta, La., a certain telescope or ‘grip,’ containing trousers of the value of $130, to be transported to Sibley, La., and delivered to the plaintiffs; and that the defendant had failed to carry and deliver the same as it agreed to do, and that it was wholly lost to the plaintiffs.
The defendant answered, and denied that-the telescope or…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Arkansas & Louisiana Railway Co. v. SandersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907