Cloar v. Consumers' Compress Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court, First Division, R. II. Dudley, Judge; Instruction 4 given 'by the court on the subject of negligence, without the modification requested by the appellant, viz: “unless, after the discovery of such negligence, the defendant was negligent in failing to prevent the loss of plaintiffs’ cotton,” took from the jury one of the most important questions in the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court, First Division, R. II. Dudley, Judge; Instruction 4 given 'by the court on the subject of negligence, without the modification requested by the appellant, viz: “unless, after the discovery of such negligence, the defendant was negligent in failing to prevent the loss of plaintiffs’ cotton,” took from the jury one of the most important questions in the case. And, in giving the 4th instruction requested by the defendant, the concluding sentence thereof erroneously placed a burden on the plaintiff greater than that required of the State in criminal…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellant instituted suit against appellee in the Crittenden Circuit Court to recover damages in the sum of $3508.42, the value of 28 bales of cotton, stored in appellee’s warehouse and destroyed by fire through appellee’s alleged negligence in permitting loose lint cotton and sawdust to remain on the ground and platform near the -warehouse, and in not preventing the fire after it was discovered.
Appellee filed an answer, specifically denying that the fire originated or continued after discovery through its negligence.
The cause was submitted upon the pleadings, evidence and instructions of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Tonne v. KollmeyerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953