Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Co. v. Tate
Mississippi Supreme Court
Rrom the circuit court of Tunica comity. IIon. R. W. Williamson, Judge. Action by appellees to recover of the appellant company the value of a mule killed by its running train. The testimony of the witnesses for the plaintiff is stated in the opinion. It may he added that they testified that the tracks of the mule showed that it rau about forty yards down the track before being overtaken.
Read the full summary
Rrom the circuit court of Tunica comity. IIon. R. W. Williamson, Judge. Action by appellees to recover of the appellant company the value of a mule killed by its running train. The testimony of the witnesses for the plaintiff is stated in the opinion. It may he added that they testified that the tracks of the mule showed that it rau about forty yards down the track before being overtaken. The engineer, who was the only eye-witness, and the only witness examined for the defense, testified that the night was dark; that his train — a freight, consisting of thirty-five loaded cars — was running…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
Reluctant as we are to set aside a verdict approved by the-circuit judge, we are so dissatisfied with this one as to feel constrained to do it. There is no real conflict.between the witnesses as to material facts. Doubtless, each told the truth as he understood it, and, if so, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. The plaintiff’s witness testified that the numerous tracks indicated that the mule had “fed along” the road-bed for nearly or quite an hour (which must have been the merest guess, for how many tracks a mule grazing-would make in a given time must be very uncertain, because…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Owens v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1902
- Waldrop v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1910
- Scott v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley RailroadMississippi Supreme Court · 1894
- Granby v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- O'Kelly v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley RailroadMississippi Supreme Court · 1909